Tyrion and Shae—15 signs of an abusive relationship

[Lyanna Stark]

Over the top? No. It's what we're supposed to do with characters we become invested in, else we wouldn't be so invested in them. Plus I don't 'judge' them, but I do see them through Tyrion's eyes and feel his feelings towards them, for the most part. Like we all do with all of our POV characters.

No, "we" don't do that. I can read a PoV character and still form an opinion about them that isn't based on their own feelings. For instance, I can read a Theon chapter and not feel much sympathy at all for Theon, albeit thinking he is an interesting character. I think Tyrion is an interesting character, but by no means do I think he is flawless, or that criticising him makes me a "bad person" like you posted.

And a good defence it is too. I require proof before I judge a situation. I do not have a hard time accepting that, but without proof, it's impossible to fully believe in it. We don't have Shae's POV, so we don't know if she's lying to Tyrion or not. Stop being so ridiculous - this isn't about feminism, it's about realism. If I claimed that someone had raped me, a court would require proof, they wouldn't instantly believe me just because I'm a poor defenceless woman who is instantly a victim because I'm the 'weaker sex'. Why do you seem to have such a hard time accepting that not all women are victims?

You do know that it's about a 80-90% chance that if a woman is raped, the perpetrator will go free right? So using that as an example of moral standards is baffling. By your reasoning here, that's the right way of things. I'd also ask you to please refrain from more ad hominem attacks. It's rude and it's against board rules.

I also disagree with you saying it's a good defence. Since you are not backing it up with anything more than your own feelings and no evidence from the actual books, it remains: your feelings, and nothing else. It also adds very little to the actual discussion since you state what you feel and leave it at that, without any reasoning or basis for why. You chose not to believe certain things, but you do not state why, or explain why.

Later I said that he would have been better off leaving Shae, I think he was being selfish by taking her to KL but there is the other side of it that someone else, can't remember which poster it was, pointed out about the possible implications of leaving Shae in the hands of the man she was taken from. We don't have any insight into that, but because Tyrion did take Shae to KL, I think he did his best to protect Shae from other men, trouble and Tywin, but also himself from Tywin too.

Shae would hardly have been much worse off trying to find a new patron or by going back to the old one. What do you base this speculation on? What facts in the books are you backing this up with?

The fact of the matter is: Tyrion acts selfishly when he brings Shae with him and he also does it despite Tywin's wishes. He could easily have found new whores in KL, but he doesn't, since he likes his pretend girlfriend.

[Inara]

We don't have Shae's POV, so we don't know if she's lying to Tyrion or not.

But we do have Cersei's POV, where she believes Robert raped her. So why don't you believe her?

Also, going by that line of thought, that means that we can't really believe anything said by a non-POV character.

[FuzzyJAM]

But we do have Cersei's POV, where she believes Robert raped her. So why don't you believe her?

Also, going by that line of thought, that means that we can't really believe anything said by a non-POV character.

Don't be silly.

We only have to question non-POV characters that say things we don't like.

[SkynJay]

OP has too much time on their hands.

Does she? Because I would be shocked if GRRM didn't have parts of that well know list in mind when he was slowly building up the relationship between the two.

[deleted01]

Except this isn't court and furthermore given the very real life statistics of 1 in 4 women being subject to sexual assault or rape (and I can only assume it was worse in the medieval setting these books are based upon), then I'm gonna go ahead and believe that Shae was raped (and I'm not even touching the Cersei one because there is scads and scads of textual evidence that she was raped repeatedly through her marriage to Robert but you just don't see it).

N

But we do have Cersei's POV, where she believes Robert raped her. So why don't you believe her?

Also, going by that line of thought, that means that we can't really believe anything said by a non-POV character.

I only see "textual evidence" in the form of her thoughts and memories. They are not definitive, we have seen this many times with other characters, who believe something that is wrong, an example being Catelyn believing that Bran and Rickon are dead. The use of the unreliable narrator is something that GRRM has touched upon, and said something last night at the signing in London, and that's the narrative device I believe is used with Cersei. If we hadn't found out through a Bran chapter that he's actually alive, we would have believed what Catelyn believed, but I would like to think that people would question it, and seek evidence for his death, the same as Syrio. I do not fully believe Cersei's accounts of what happened between her and Robert for many reasons, which have all been shot down by the same people, but it's still what I read and believe. I'm not the only one, people cannot simply say that others are wrong because they read different things from the same text. At risk of repeating myself, it's all about interpretation, and I interpret Cersei's chapters as not fully true. I think she has deluded herself in this as she has in other things, such as the "risks" Margaery poses to her and Tommen.

As for Shae, yes it's likely but we have no evidence whatsoever for her abuse by her father. It's interesting that some people seem able to fully believe everything that women say, but question everything about the men. The real-life statistics are shocking and disgusting, and they probably were worse in medieval times, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Shae was also a victim.

No, "we" don't do that. I can read a PoV character and still form an opinion about them that isn't based on their own feelings. For instance, I can read a Theon chapter and not feel much sympathy at all for Theon, albeit thinking he is an interesting character. I think Tyrion is an interesting character, but by no means do I think he is flawless, or that criticising him makes me a "bad person" like you posted.

I never said Tyrion was flawless, I said that I love him, despite his flaws, and some of his flaws make me love him more, such as his being a dwarf and his attitude towards others. His tongue always gets him into trouble, but he's witty, which endears me to him even more. I feel utter sympathy for Theon, especially when reading his later chapters, but that's simply a difference between us. People read differently. When I become invested in a character, of course I begin to see things through them, especially if they are the POV character, and of course I care about them enough to hate those that they hate, love those that they love, cheer for them and cry for them. I do see their flaws, but because of how much I like them, it's easier to forget about these flaws. I've always admitted that, and I don't think it makes me a bad person - I think it means that GRRM has done a fantastic job of creating such amazing characters.

You do know that it's about a 80-90% chance that if a woman is raped, the perpetrator will go free right? So using that as an example of moral standards is baffling. By your reasoning here, that's the right way of things. I'd also ask you to please refrain from more ad hominem attacks. It's rude and it's against board rules.

You said exactly the same thing to me - you said I have a hard time accepting that women can be victims and oppressed, so I retaliated in the same way. Yes I do know that prosecution rates are nowhere near high enough, but I was merely stating the fact that there must be proof for someone to be convicted of something, both in a court of law and in my mind. I didn't want to begin a debate on the criminal justice system, which doesn't work as well as it should, but men cannot be convicted of rape simply on the word of a woman - women lie too. Unfortunately this helps actual criminals escape justice, but I do not have the power to change that.

I also disagree with you saying it's a good defence. Since you are not backing it up with anything more than your own feelings and no evidence from the actual books, it remains: your feelings, and nothing else. It also adds very little to the actual discussion since you state what you feel and leave it at that, without any reasoning or basis for why. You chose not to believe certain things, but you do not state why, or explain why.

I've stated my reasoning about Cersei many a time, and you have always said that it wasn't good enough for you. For that I can only apologise, but it's good enough for me, and many others who think along the same lines as I do.

Shae would hardly have been much worse off trying to find a new patron or by going back to the old one. What do you base this speculation on? What facts in the books are you backing this up with?

The fact of the matter is: Tyrion acts selfishly when he brings Shae with him and he also does it despite Tywin's wishes. He could easily have found new whores in KL, but he doesn't, since he likes his pretend girlfriend.

I actually said that someone else pointed that out, which I found interesting. We don't know who Bronn took her from, I believe the original comment said something along the lines of "It could have been someone like Gregor Clegane" (sorry, I can't remember who said it but I'll find it if need be), which most definitely would have been worse than being with Tyrion. It's not my speculation, there are no facts in the text because we are not told who she was originally with, but it was an interesting speculation because whoever she was with then, or whoever she could have gone with next, could well have been one of the Mountain's men, or even Lannister guards, who are not known for their kindness towards women, and it's likely she would have ended up worse than she did with Tyrion.

I don't think he defied Tywin for that reason. I think he defied Tywin because he was sick of him dictating to his life, but also because he truly liked Shae. If he didn't, why go to all that bother? As you say, he could have found many different whores in KL. He did, in fact, but he didn't go with anyone else - I took that as evidence for his love, or belief of love, for Shae. Taking Shae to KL was selfish, but if I remember correctly, didn't she want to go with him too? Plus, being selfish isn't the worst crime in the world - many characters are selfish, I don't see all of them being denounced so much for it.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

That was me Fire & Blood.

[FuzzyJAM]

Fire&Blood, I think you're confusing two separate concepts. In literature, unreliable narrator is not the same as third person limited. Catelyn is not an unreliable narrator when her thoughts presents Bran and Rickon as dead because she is simply thinking the "truth" as she knows it while being of clear mind. She is being a limited narrator, in that she doesn't know everything, simply what a human could "know" in such a situation, but she is reliably showing this. Our knowledge of events is as limited as hers are, but not limited by her, which is the essential component to an unreliable narrator.

Unreliable narrators are ones who are self-deceiving or insane. A schizophrenic seeing hallucinations would be an obvious unreliable narrator which I don't need to explain. A more complex form is where someone "remembers" things in a way that puts them in a favourable light or puts someone else in a less favourable light. This is where their actual thoughts belie reality. This is what you're claiming Cersei is (or may be) doing. And hey, maybe you're right. Ultimately we cannot know unless GRRM flat out tells us (and even then you get into author-reader relationship. . .) However, to present an unreliable narrator as being a common occurrence in the books by bringing up examples of limited knowledge doesn't work because they're simply different.

Cersei is not even truly being an unreliable narrator when she thinks her paranoid thoughts or her daughter-in-law. Her thoughts don't present to us false events, they simply present her own thoughts which happen to be stupid and unfounded. As I see no evidence of Cersei ever being unreliable, and I don't see it as a common part of the books, I think viewing any remembrance of sex with Robert that Cersei has from the first person as unreliable doesn't make sense. Yes, it's unreliable in the sense that everything in the books is, but it should be viewed as no less reliable than everything else. Question it as much as you question everything else, fine, but it seems to me like you're questioning some things more than others simply because you don't want it to be true.

[Kalbear]

My guess on what GRRM intended with shae/Tyron was to showcase not the fucked up romance or Tyron's psyche, but to show once again the classism in westeros and what happens when you step out of line. That's one of the central themes throughout the series, and it's no where more true than with shae.

I was talking with my wife about what a feminist masterpiece cersei could have been; think about how the faith persecuted her for having sex but not Robert, or how she was beset by people around her mostly because of her being a woman, or the kingdom she inherited and the issues she dealt with - and actually dealt with them fairly well! Throw out the paranoia crap, focus on her doing basically everything right and still being ignored or sabotaged, and you get a powerful tale of how women's power and position is so much weaker and asymmetrical compared to men.

But GRRM fucked that up. I kinda hope the show fixes this.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

It's honestly rather hilarious dramatic irony (I would assume it's intentional) that Tyrion "steals" Shae from another man with his superior power and more wealth and has no problems with her complying to this (beyond worrying if it will hurt him), and yet when someone else does exactly the same thing he thinks Shae's an utterly terrible being whom he needs to get revenge upon.

This is an excellent point.

[Lummel]

...Later I said that he would have been better off leaving Shae, I think he was being selfish by taking her to KL but there is the other side of it that someone else, can't remember which poster it was, pointed out about the possible implications of leaving Shae in the hands of the man she was taken from. We don't have any insight into that, but because Tyrion did take Shae to KL, I think he did his best to protect Shae from other men, trouble and Tywin, but also himself from Tywin too.

The only risk to Shae comes through Tyrion wanting a certain fantasy relationship with her. Trouble is inevitable so long as Tyrion treats her and uses her the way he does. Everything that Tyrion is doing is for his own benefit here, he's not some would be Gladstone out to rescue prostitutes from lives of sin.

[deleted01]

That was me Fire & Blood.

Thank you :)

Fire&Blood, I think you're confusing two separate concepts. In literature, unreliable narrator is not the same as third person limited. Catelyn is not an unreliable narrator when her thoughts presents Bran and Rickon as dead because she is simply thinking the "truth" as she knows it while being of clear mind. She is being a limited narrator, in that she doesn't know everything, simply what a human could "know" in such a situation, but she is reliably showing this. Our knowledge of events is as limited as hers are, but not limited by her, which is the essential component to an unreliable narrator.

Unreliable narrators are ones who are self-deceiving or insane. A schizophrenic seeing hallucinations would be an obvious unreliable narrator which I don't need to explain. A more complex form is where someone "remembers" things in a way that puts them in a favourable light or puts someone else in a less favourable light. This is where their actual thoughts belie reality. This is what you're claiming Cersei is (or may be) doing. And hey, maybe you're right. Ultimately we cannot know unless GRRM flat out tells us (and even then you get into author-reader relationship. . .) However, to present an unreliable narrator as being a common occurrence in the books by bringing up examples of limited knowledge doesn't work because they're simply different.

Cersei is not even truly being an unreliable narrator when she thinks her paranoid thoughts or her daughter-in-law. Her thoughts don't present to us false events, they simply present her own thoughts which happen to be stupid and unfounded. As I see no evidence of Cersei ever being unreliable, and I don't see it as a common part of the books, I think viewing any remembrance of sex with Robert that Cersei has from the first person as unreliable doesn't make sense. Yes, it's unreliable in the sense that everything in the books is, but it should be viewed as no less reliable than everything else. Question it as much as you question everything else, fine, but it seems to me like you're questioning some things more than others simply because you don't want it to be true.

Ah apologies, yes the Catelyn example was wrong. Thanks for setting that straight.

Cersei certainly presents Margaery in a less favourable light, and she does see dangers that aren't there with regard to Margaery and Loras. Cersei also has warped thoughts, such as when she thinks her washerwomen have been shrinking her dresses. She also knows she creates the rumour about Margaery and Loras committing incest, but later it comes across as if she truly believes it. If 'unreliable narrator' is the wrong term, I apologise, but I still see her account of things as warped. It's clear she can convince herself of almost anything, and I truly believe that by "remembering" that Robert treated her so disgustingly almost gives her justification for cuckolding and killing him, in her mind.

My view is mine, alone with it or not, and I think that seeing things through Cersei's mind is not the most reliable way of learning about events. Her thoughts are warped, she does have the view that everyone is an enemy, that she and Joffrey can do no wrong - these are not 'normal' thoughts. This is just one part of why I don't fully believe everything she says.

We are going off-topic here, so I'll stop with Cersei now. Somehow every single damn argument comes back to Cersei :lol:

The only risk to Shae comes through Tyrion wanting a certain fantasy relationship with her. Trouble is inevitable so long as Tyrion treats her and uses her the way he does. Everything that Tyrion is doing is for his own benefit here, he's not some would be Gladstone out to rescue prostitutes from lives of sin.

That's not what I meant, I agree that taking Shae to KL was to benefit him, but I don't think it's fair to call his treatment of Shae abuse. I also don't think he took her to KL with the motive to hurt her. I genuinely believe he took her because he liked her, and wanted to be with her. Those are selfish motives, yes, but not evil, abusive ones.

[Lyanna Stark]

I never said Tyrion was flawless, I said that I love him, despite his flaws, and some of his flaws make me love him more, such as his being a dwarf and his attitude towards others. His tongue always gets him into trouble, but he's witty, which endears me to him even more. I feel utter sympathy for Theon, especially when reading his later chapters, but that's simply a difference between us. People read differently. When I become invested in a character, of course I begin to see things through them, especially if they are the POV character, and of course I care about them enough to hate those that they hate, love those that they love, cheer for them and cry for them. I do see their flaws, but because of how much I like them, it's easier to forget about these flaws. I've always admitted that, and I don't think it makes me a bad person - I think it means that GRRM has done a fantastic job of creating such amazing characters.

That is not what you said. What you DID say was that you automatically jumped to the conclusion that people who disliked Tyrion were bad people. That had nothing to do with your own feelings, but what you are projecting onto others. And it is an ad hominem attack, to boot.

Let me repost what you did say:

I love Tyrion, so naturally anyone who crosses him instantly flags up as a 'bad person' to me.

But you are right in one thing: from your posts, it does seem like you ten to forget about flaws in the characters you like. It doesn't make you a bad person it all, it just makes your arguing flawed, since you do not use reasoning as a basis for your conclusions: you use your own feelings.

You said exactly the same thing to me - you said I have a hard time accepting that women can be victims and oppressed, so I retaliated in the same way.

Retaliate? Is this a discussion about a book or are you after some personal revenge or vendetta? :dunno:

Judging by your posts in the Cersei thread and in this one, it seems your views indicate that you have a hard time accepting women who are not pure and innocent can also be victims and oppressed. As your counter argument, you cited rape statistics, but they are an extreme example in how society favours men and how hard it is for women to fight an uphill battle and get a guilty verdict. "Women also lie" is not an acceptable answer to explain away the statistics either btw, since it hardly covers 1% of all cases. We're talking 25% of the female population who have at some point been sexually assaulted or abused (and you are debating with one of those 25% btw FYI).

I've stated my reasoning about Cersei many a time, and you have always said that it wasn't good enough for you. For that I can only apologise, but it's good enough for me, and many others who think along the same lines as I do.

Why apologise? :dunno: I disagree with your opinion because it's not based on anything factual from the books or any logical reasoning. Your views were based only on your feelings. Again, you seem to take this personally. I have made no ad hominem attacks on you.

I actually said that someone else pointed that out, which I found interesting. We don't know who Bronn took her from, I believe the original comment said something along the lines of "It could have been someone like Gregor Clegane" (sorry, I can't remember who said it but I'll find it if need be), which most definitely would have been worse than being with Tyrion. It's not my speculation, there are no facts in the text because we are not told who she was originally with, but it was an interesting speculation because whoever she was with then, or whoever she could have gone with next, could well have been one of the Mountain's men, or even Lannister guards, who are not known for their kindness towards women, and it's likely she would have ended up worse than she did with Tyrion.

Yes, it is a possibility and a speculation, or a crackpot theory, but again, nothing that is evidenced anywhere in the text at all. Bronn just said he took her from some red head knight nearby if I remember correctly, so it could have been anyone. I also don't think it's a given he would have been better or worse than Tyrion. This we simply cannot know.

[The Storm Queen]

My guess on what GRRM intended with shae/Tyron was to showcase not the fucked up romance or Tyron's psyche, but to show once again the classism in westeros and what happens when you step out of line. That's one of the central themes throughout the series, and it's no where more true than with shae.

I was talking with my wife about what a feminist masterpiece cersei could have been; think about how the faith persecuted her for having sex but not Robert, or how she was beset by people around her mostly because of her being a woman, or the kingdom she inherited and the issues she dealt with - and actually dealt with them fairly well! Throw out the paranoia crap, focus on her doing basically everything right and still being ignored or sabotaged, and you get a powerful tale of how women's power and position is so much weaker and asymmetrical compared to men.

But GRRM fucked that up. I kinda hope the show fixes this.

Now you ruined my day by making me reminsence about the time where I though Cersei could go into this direction.

I would have been totally okay even with Cersei being a villain or with her having severe problems in governing because she never got the right education for it and faces massive opposition. Especially the former would have been fascinating: Cersei as a villain (like Magneto for example) who has real reasons to be so messed up.

But I really hate the message we got after Dance: That the only woman to openly refuse classic gender roles fucks everything up when she gets power in her own right and no good men (like the loveable Tywin and Kevan) are there to control her and limit the damage. We also have the prophecy of suck that retcons her whole backstory and makes all gender issues obsolet: Now the problems of patriarchy become secondary while the stage is set for another cat fight about whom is more "young and beautiful". I love these books, I really do but this was something I hope Martin does not do again.

[Castel]

As for Tyrion taking Shae to KL, he didn't carry a bag of oats. She chose to go for the money and prestige, much the same way Bronn did, and I don't hear anyone complaining about him being put into danger. Of course, if Tyrion didn't stress the danger then he's still in the wrong but I have issues with the idea that he carried her to KL.

Logically I honestly don't care if she was raped or not, she chose to enter that life.It really has no bearing on anything. And she chose to stay in it. And hell, why not it's easier than a ton of jobs out there, at least with Tyrion. She is allowed to make her own decisions as Tyrion is, and she chose to go with him.

This is the first post I read from you which is really sad because you write very insightful and stay far more objective and rational when confronted with sexist posts than I could hope to be. I agree with almost everything you said but have to disagree a little bit with your last paragraph.

Of course, I also do not think that Martin is a misogynist.I am also convinced that he mostly succeeded in writting round female characters. But still I am a bit disturbed by the way Cersei´s arc developed and I see some sexist tropes at play there. For example compare and contrast how differently her and Tyrion´s desire to inherit the Rock is treated. Or how she is punished in a sexual (and gratious) way for acts of sexuality while her real crimes (ordering torture for example) are seen as secondary.

I reserve final judgment for the moment I have read the last book but up to now I have a bad feeling that we will see Cersei being killed by Jaime because she slept with other man (and not by someone different because she did evil things)

Which I think was the point of Fuzzyjam's post (or maybe I did). Characters in the series act this way because they are misogynistic and barbaric, it's meant to be sexist, and on some level you should be able to slip into the skin of the male characters while they're being sexist but we should also be able to stand outside of it and see it for what it is. A purely misogynistic exercise done to shame and control women. In-story it is sexist, but I can't buy that Martin himself is sexist for showing sexism.

Cersei's POV is a much more tricky point, but I think he did give hints at her character.

That the only woman to openly refuse classic gender roles fucks everything up when she gets power in her own right and no good men (like the loveable Tywin and Kevan) are there to control her and limit the damage

See, this is what I don't get on a logical level; what's the problem? I mean, the series is deconstructionist, I don't hear anyone jumping about when Ned Stark, the only good man is outplayed and murdered and the same goes for his son. When the good guys lose because they were good. That is as much a trope in fantasy as the strong female warrior/mother bear. Not all characters will fit the traditional fantasy mold. People can have good characteristics and bad ones.Also: refuse classic gender roles? Cersei? Am I missing something. Brienne fits that far better than Cersei does.

[deleted01]

That is not what you said. What you DID say was that you automatically jumped to the conclusion that people who disliked Tyrion were bad people. That had nothing to do with your own feelings, but what you are projecting onto others. And it is an ad hominem attack, to boot.

But you are right in one thing: from your posts, it does seem like you ten to forget about flaws in the characters you like. It doesn't make you a bad person it all, it just makes your arguing flawed, since you do not use reasoning as a basis for your conclusions: you use your own feelings.

Oh yes, I absolutely do do that when I'm reading, because I'm so involved. I'd like to know how other readers don't get so involved in books such as these. However I can come out and make my own decisions - I meant to say that while reading, if Tyrion sees someone as bad, so do I, I don't question it. Only after do I think about it and perhaps change how I viewed that person/event, based on my own feelings. That's why I joined this forum, to explore things much more deeply than I could possibly do on my own. I have no qualms with admitting that.

Retaliate? Is this a discussion about a book or are you after some personal revenge or vendetta? :dunno:

Wrong word, 'replied' would have been better. I have no personal vendetta against you, I don't know you, and that's a ridiculous notion. We always seem to clash opinion-wise but that doesn't mean I have a problem with you whatsoever.

Judging by your posts in the Cersei thread and in this one, it seems your views indicate that you have a hard time accepting women who are not pure and innocent can also be victims and oppressed. As your counter argument, you cited rape statistics, but they are an extreme example in how society favours men and how hard it is for women to fight an uphill battle and get a guilty verdict. "Women also lie" is not an acceptable answer to explain away the statistics either btw, since it hardly covers 1% of all cases. We're talking 25% of the female population who have at some point been sexually assaulted or abused (and you are debating with one of those 25% btw FYI).

Well now I feel awful. But I only meant that in order for someone to be convicted, there should be evidence against them, man or woman. The way true victims of sexual assault are treated by the criminal justice system (at least in England) is disgusting, and I can see why so many cases go unreported. I do not disbelieve Cersei because she has slept around a bit and is not 'pure', I disbelieve her because of the way she views certain things, and because of some things she does, like giving women to Qyburn for no apparent crime or sin committed on said woman's behalf. I disbelieve Sansa's account of what happened between her and the Hound - she remembers that he kissed her, but during the chapter where it occurred, he didn't kiss her. So I base my opinions on facts, not on the character.

Why apologise? :dunno: I disagree with your opinion because it's not based on anything factual from the books or any logical reasoning. Your views were based only on your feelings. Again, you seem to take this personally. I have made no ad hominem attacks on you.

Well I apologise because my reasoning is not good enough for some people. I don't intend to change anyone's minds, I just find it a bit odd that my arguments are constantly denounced as having no justification. I have given reasoning from the texts, about how Cersei views certain people and events, and how she has created things (and then later seemed to believe them herself) to suit her and make herself look better - the example of the incest between Margaery and Loras is the one that springs to mind. I know Cersei made it up, I thought Cersei knew she'd made it up, but later on I definitely felt like she had convinced herself of it's truth. Might be I misunderstood something, but the vibe I get from Cersei is that anything she says is unreliable.

Sometimes Cersei debates can get a bit heated, but it's important to remember that everyone has their own interpretations/opinions/views partially because of their life experiences. I don't wish to go into detail about mine, but I have my reasons and I cannot change how I see Cersei. I did try on my reread, as I've said before, to see her in a different light and I paid special attention to her chapters, but alas, my feelings-based opinions cannot be changed. I think there is textual evidence for Cersei's unreliability, as I know I'm not the only person to see her as I do, and I have stated some, but if it's not good enough for a debate, well, that's why I apologise. There's not much else I can say on this matter.

Yes, it is a possibility and a speculation, or a crackpot theory, but again, nothing that is evidenced anywhere in the text at all. Bronn just said he took her from some red head knight nearby if I remember correctly, so it could have been anyone. I also don't think it's a given he would have been better or worse than Tyrion. This we simply cannot know.

I agree, I only mentioned it off-hand because I found it interesting.

[Woman of War]

Fire&Blood, on 11 April 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

I love Tyrion, so naturally anyone who crosses him instantly flags up as a 'bad person' to me.

this statement seems to be full of self irony to me, and it should be read as very fat irony towards so many posters, including myself, who are fans of certain characters. And we all know that wronging someone's fan sweetheart may very well lead to eternal and irreddemable qualification as evil character (the book character and the poster). We all may be in danger of worshipping our favorite, of overidentifying and taking our fandom seriously as if we all weren't talking about literary characters but Real Life people.

WE AREN'T!!! The only person that could be offended by whatever posting is your fellow poster.

And, btw, I am a Tyrion fan and whoever wrongs my favorite dwarf is a totally politically incorrect hater of nerds, handicapped, intellectual book lovers and, apart from that, my worst enemy. :D be careful IRONY!

[Lady Hodor]

I actually felt sorry for Tyrion after the way their relationship turned out. But I suppose what happened to them was a two-way street.

Tyrion was a little foolish, she was a whore, he knew that, yet he still insisted on treating her like a highborn lady he wanted to marry.

Shae, it was her job, but to jump into bed with Tywin Lannister? Of all people? A knife in Tyrion's back, a sharp one.

[FuzzyJAM]

Judging by your posts in the Cersei thread and in this one, it seems your views indicate that you have a hard time accepting women who are not pure and innocent can also be victims and oppressed. As your counter argument, you cited rape statistics, but they are an extreme example in how society favours men and how hard it is for women to fight an uphill battle and get a guilty verdict. "Women also lie" is not an acceptable answer to explain away the statistics either btw, since it hardly covers 1% of all cases. We're talking 25% of the female population who have at some point been sexually assaulted or abused (and you are debating with one of those 25% btw FYI).

I agree with most of what you said, but this I have to take issue with. Sexual abuse, by its nature, is frequently all but impossible to prove. We have standards of innocent until proven guilty and beyond reasonable doubt, and personally I think that's a good thing. In the case of sexual abuse, this means most victims never get justice and most perpetrators get off. However, that isn't really society favouring men - it's not as though male claimants of rape have it any better (at least to my knowledge). It's simply the outworking of a system which aims to never condemn an innocent person regardless of crime in an area where it's incredibly difficult to know who is innocent and who is guilty.

I don't know how it feels to be raped. I almost certainly (and very much hopefully) never will. I can try, but I don't truly understand how awful it is and how much it must hurt to see justice not being done. The statistics present a truly sad state of affairs. However, I firmly believe there isn't much you can really do unless you wish to change "beyond reasonable doubt", which I personally couldn't agree to.

[FuzzyJAM]

I actually felt sorry for Tyrion after the way their relationship turned out. But I suppose what happened to them was a two-way street.

Tyrion was a little foolish, she was a whore, he knew that, yet he still insisted on treating her like a highborn lady he wanted to marry.

Shae, it was her job, but to jump into bed with Tywin Lannister? Of all people? A knife in Tyrion's back, a sharp one.

Do you think Tywin is the sort of man to care about prostitutes? I suggest if anyone had a knife pressed to their back, it was Shae.

The chance of her having any choice in whether she slept with Tywin are. . .slim.

[deleted01]

Fire&Blood, on 11 April 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

this statement seems to be full of self irony to me, and it should be read as very fat irony towards so many posters, including myself, who are fans of certain characters. And we all know that wronging someone's fan sweetheart may very well lead to eternal and irreddemable qualification as evil character (the book character and the poster). We all may be in danger of worshipping our favorite, of overidentifying and taking our fandom seriously as if we all weren't talking about literary characters but Real Life people.

WE AREN'T!!! The only person that could be offended by whatever posting is your fellow poster.

And, btw, I am a Tyrion fan and whoever wrongs my favorite dwarf is a totally politically incorrect hater of nerds, handicapped, intellectual book lovers and, apart from that, my worst enemy. :D be careful IRONY!

Yeah I fully admit to this fault of mine, of becoming so involved with my favourite characters that the ones they don't like instantly become ones I don't like. It's not always the case, and I am capable of thinking for myself, but it's definitely testament to GRRM for creating such fascinating characters, to get such a reaction from many readers. With Cersei, for example, it's even harder for me to like her because of the way she treats Tyrion. When we hear of how she twisted his penis when he was a kid, for example, I got a bit angry with her, because that's my favourite character she's abusing. However, if I step back and think about how an 8? year old child would feel towards a baby that ultimately killed her mother, it's not as clear-cut as my initial feeling of "Fuck off Cersei!". She wouldn't have understood that Tyrion didn't do it on purpose, that it was an unfortunate but natural thing that sometimes happens. With things like this, I can sympathise with her, but it's difficult the majority of the time to do so.

It's easy to forget that these are fictional characters, that's also true :lol: