(Book and Show Spoilers) Does anyone think the show portrays some characters more positively then the books?

[Pinkie Baelish]

Personally, I'm disgusted that they gave Ramsay a sense of humour and didn't show his cruelty to the naked women. It's blatant whitewashing and character assassination.

[the_one_who_was_promised]

I think that the producers seem to have decided who their main characters were going to be, or at least who they were going to champion - most notably, Tyrion. Or, at the very least, they wanted to see how fans reacted to the characters of the first season, then shaped them from thereon in.

For example, I didn't feel that Daenerys or Tyrion were particularly type cast as the heroes in season 1 - but as a lot of people seem to believe, everyone apparently seems to love an underdog. With this in mind, it is no surprise that characters like Dany, Tyrion and Jon really appealed to viewers, and perhaps with their own fanbases, scenes were adapted to make these characters even more likeable to viewers. I think it has now been decided that Tyrion will either not kill Shae, or he will be provoked into doing so, or do so accidentally for instance, because I don't think Producers will want his reputation being sullied with her murder.

On the other hand, Stannis is a complex character - both in the books and the show - and I don't see a particularly more sympathetic portrayal on screen.

But, I have no idea why the Producers seem to have opted for a more sympathetic portrayal of Cersei, Tywin and Theon, as it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

[Pinkie Baelish]

On the other hand, Stannis is a complex character - both in the books and the show - and I don't see a particularly more sympathetic portrayal on screen.

But, I have no idea why the Producers seem to have opted for a more sympathetic portrayal of Cersei, Tywin and Theon, as it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

I would say Cersei and Theon needed a more sympathetic portrayal, given that in the books it sometimes feels like Martin is jabbing a finger at us saying "HAHA! Look at how awful they are! Do you hate them now? How about now?" Also, if you didn't make them more sympathetic and had them being just as bad as they are in the books, Cersei's AFFC arc and Theon's ACOK arc would turn off viewers. It's a different medium of art. You can get away with characters being darker in books than TV, given that you're not actually seeing them do terrible things in front of your eyes. You need to provide something in these characters that would make people care about their story and see how things play out.

I loved what they did with Theon in season 2. He was still a shitty person, but the show enhanced the tragedy of his story. The letter burning scene did wonders in making his character richer and more fully-realized. I'm of the opinion that villains should generally contain some redeeming or sympathetic qualities, as it can definitely make things more complex and make us more conflicted in our views. Would The Wire have been as great or compelling as it was if guys like Stringer Bell or Frank Sobotka didn't have sympathetic qualities to them? Probably not.

I do agree about the Tywin point to an extent. At times, it feels like the show is trying to say that he's always right, when that's not entirely the case. Tywin is pretty damn short-sighted, if you think about it.

[Nezzer]

Would The Wire have been as great or compelling as it was if guys like Stringer Bell or Frank Sobotka didn't have sympathetic qualities to them? Probably not.

Hey, Frank Sobotka was completely sympathetic, at least to me. He was just a good guy doing some small crimes. He was my favorite character in season 2. I should hate Valchek for what he did to Frank, but Valchek was also awesome. Stringer was also great, but I enjoyed the port/Greek business more than the Barksdale/Marlo business.

[CarCrashFiance]

Hey, Frank Sobotka was completely sympathetic, at least to me. He was just a good guy doing some small crimes. He was my favorite character in season 2. I should hate Valchek for what he did to Frank, but Valchek was also awesome. Stringer was also great, but I enjoyed the port/Greek business more than the Barksdale/Marlo business.

Frank is meant to be a villain. This is confirmed in the scene where his brother accuses him of being corrupt and immoral. We know that Frank was willing to facilitate murder and cover up for murders as long as it got him some money. And he was smuggling in drugs and guns for money. Definitely not a sympathetic character if you pay attention.

The point of The Wire is to show how villains are portrayed as entire black in Hollywood. Villains do the same things that everyone else does. Grocery shop, have kids, go to a ball game, go fishing, see a movie, and so on. They aren't plotting murders and assassinations every single minute like most cartoonish Hollywood villains are. They are human like everyone else and enjoy regular things. But they also are part of criminal conspiracies.

The GOT books have the villains doing regular things as well. And the heroes doing unsavory things. That's how the world works. It's more realistic. There's more depth. There's a reason why watching The Wire or reading ASOIAF ruins the enjoyment of most other tv shows and book series. Wire and ASOIAF have an ocean of depth. Most other stories are nothing more than puddles.

Is Tyrion a good guy? Not really. What has he done that isn't out of total self preservation? He has people murdered. Whores around. Supports Mad Joffrey instead of the rightful King. Instead of focusing on the safety of King's Landing he spends half of his time worrying about a whore who doesn't even like him. He feasts himself while the smallfolk starve. Marries Sansa despite promising Catelyn that he'd return her. Kills his own father and kills Shae. Thinks that jewelry is an apology for a public lashing.

Tyrion is a selfish asshole in the books. He does everything for himself. His father makes him the most powerful person. Hand of the King. He spends half of his days banging a whore. Tywin was correct that Tyrion doesn't take things seriously. But that's the great part about the books. Tyrion is power hungry and selfish like anyone else.

Is Tywin some selfless individual? No. He beds whores in secret. Arranges for violent weddings that violate guest right. Is as ruthless as anyone. Yet he hypocritically passes judgement on others for those very things. Fantasy grounded in realism.

Characters that are too good and whitewashed are boring. I find show Tyrion to be pathetically boring. "Oh my god poor me I have to marry Sansa". Tyrion on the show has no depth. Every single scene is entirely predictable. This board knew that the show would make it so that Sansa not kneeling would be replaced by something to make Tyrion a white knight and Joffrey a monster. That's how obvious the show is becoming.

[Miodrag]

Personally, I'm disgusted that they gave Ramsay a sense of humour and didn't show his cruelty to the naked women. It's blatant whitewashing and character assassination.

So, according to your sarcasm, you think TV Ramsay is more or less the same character as book Ramsay, right? And, am I right to assume you don't think book Ramsay had a sense of humor, since it seems like you find that sense of humor a quality that was added for the show?

I would say Cersei and Theon needed a more sympathetic portrayal, given that in the books it sometimes feels like Martin is jabbing a finger at us saying "HAHA! Look at how awful they are! Do you hate them now? How about now?" Also, if you didn't make them more sympathetic and had them being just as bad as they are in the books, Cersei's AFFC arc and Theon's ACOK arc would turn off viewers. It's a different medium of art. You can get away with characters being darker in books than TV, given that you're not actually seeing them do terrible things in front of your eyes. You need to provide something in these characters that would make people care about their story and see how things play out.

Is that why D&D removed all the sympathetic layers Cersei had in ACOK? Is that why they added Theon decapitating Rodrik in front of our own eyes, in a scene that, as I can recall, you see as an improvement of the source material?

I loved what they did with Theon in season 2. He was still a shitty person, but the show enhanced the tragedy of his story. The letter burning scene did wonders in making his character richer and more fully-realized.

I seem to remember we've already been down this road, but never mind: Are you sure Theon is underdeveloped, one-note, two-dimensional villain in ACOK, that was enriched in the show? In the book, you didn't notice his inner turmoil and his conscience creeping inside him as the story progress, for which, if I may add, there are textual evidences?

And, last but not least, how can the tragedy of his story be enhanced, if: 1) his biggest crime, the one with the biggest consequences on the whole realm (fake deaths of B&R), was denied any impact on anything and anyone, including Theon himself (for example, his strict and explicit orders not to bury 'B&R' into the crypt, which might speak volumes if acted and filmed powerfully, were replaced in a way by somewhat light-minded scene in which he gives Dagmer gold for the peasant whose kids they killed), and 2) the character who actually turns the tragedy on Theon himself was completely removed from the second season?

I'm of the opinion that villains should generally contain some redeeming or sympathetic qualities, as it can definitely make things more complex and make us more conflicted in our views.

So, with this in mind, it seems you didn't like the books that much, right? Since, as you say, GRRM was jabbing a finger at us with his one-note villains, and since some of the crucial characters (I mean, Cersei is kinda the main reason for the war, while Theon's actions are the main reason the war ended the way it ended) were given sympathetic layers only in the show, you wouldn't agree with a general consensus that ASOIAF's success lays with so many grey characters?

[CarCrashFiance]

So, with this in mind, it seems you didn't like the books that much, right? Since, as you say, GRRM was jabbing a finger at us with his one-note villains, and since some of the crucial characters were given sympathetic layers only in the show, you wouldn't agree with a general consensus that ASOIAF's success lays with so many grey characters?

The problem with the show is that it is geared towards simpletons.

The books have insanely cruel and violent sadistic and sociopath lunatic villains. But they are shown to be grey not in terms of morals but in terms of their ability to live normal lives. Or be incredibly cunning and resourceful. Their entire lives aren't the planning of violence. Even Joffrey was shown to be extremely capable of being gallant and charming when he wanted to do so.

Cersei can enjoy a song, a sunrise, sex, food; but she wants total control over politics and even military and will ruthlessly cut through her enemies. Her character is given depth in that she is deeply paranoid about her own safety because of Tyrion and the valonqar prophecy. Her motivations are not just out of lust for power but also self-preservation. Every time she seizes power it is not because she wants to rule. It is because she wants to stay alive. Ned Stark forces her hand and she has to have him arrested. It's why everyone suspects her of poisoning Jon Arryn.

When Cersei was just a girl she would kill a person or two to try to maintain her own well being. Now that she's Queen, the stakes are raised, she needs to kill tens or hundreds, even thousands, to maintain her own life. A Queen's life is worth thousands of men. Because you kill the Queen and you can replace her and take her power. Which is also another part of the prophecy of Cersei's doom. A younger Queen taking her power and replacing her.

By her father selling her off to Robert Baratheon he elevated Cersei's worth enormously and caused her to have thousands of enemies who want her dead rather than a younger brother and a few others. Now she needs to murder Kings, Hands of the King, Queens, Lords, and she's surrounded by almost no one that she can fully trust. Even her father uses her like a bed slave to be pawned off to Kings and Lords and be used as a broodmare.

[Miodrag]

The problem with the show is that it is geared towards simpletons.

The books have insanely cruel and violent sadistic and sociopath lunatic villains. But they are shown to be grey not in terms of morals but in terms of their ability to live normal lives. Or be incredibly cunning and resourceful. Their entire lives aren't the planning of violence. Even Joffrey was shown to be extremely capable of being gallant and charming when he wanted to do so.

I knew you know the right answer. I wanted to see does he know, because he's one of those guys who keeps ignoring the depth of the novels and of the characters Martin created, and then goes on and claims the show improved this and that. I mean, even Ramsay, a character with no redeeming quality whatsoever, is given depth in the books, because we are presented with the reasons behind his monstrous nature: "Don't make me rue the day I raped your mother", for example. Not to mention the whole 'Reek identity' thing that in the show was reduced to a 15 seconds monologue, while in the books there's an entire story - and quite a cinematic one - behind it.

Re: Cersei. Your description is spot on. I'd just add that she's developed as a full, multidimensional person even before the prophecy is revealed. For example, one of the funniest moments in the entire series is when Tyrion informs her that Stannis sailed not for KL, but to fight Renly. He scares the living hell out of her her at first, with half-information, but when he tells her the whole truth, she's hysterical of joy, and she delivers this line: "I can't believe Robert was the smart one among Baratheon brothers." In just a few paragraphs, we see how vulnerable she is, and then, as soon as her panic ends, she instantly makes us laugh even (she made me, at least), by mocking the very person she was so scared of just a moment ago. I can't help but feel at least some level of sympathy for any fictional character who makes me laugh. And I honestly don't understand how can one read that scene and think Cersei is flat and underdeveloped in the books. Nor will I ever understand why wasn't that scene included in the show. Did they lack time or money, perhaps?

[six]

I'm of the opinion that villains should generally contain some redeeming or sympathetic qualities, as it can definitely make things more complex and make us more conflicted in our views.

Why? Some humanity yes, as in appearing like a human being with feelings etc of course, but redeeming and sympathetic is a cop out and doesn't make it more complex. Also I wouldn't say Theon in the show was given any redeeming qualities either; I loved his arc in season 2 and liked what they did with him, I pitied him but I didn't think he was "redeemable".

Cersei is another matter entirely. As someone who loves to hate book!Cersei, I struggle with this idea that she's a one note villain in the books. She's a very dynamic character, she's fierce and complex, human and fallible. She's such a tragic character because her downfall is her own making, and she can't even see that. And I did find her sympathetic in the books too, how can you not have sympathy for someone who has lost a son and is grieving? Or for her terror at the thought of losing another child? Also, in the books she's a hoot and really, proper funny. So far in the show I've only seen hints of the character Cersei could be, at this point they've established she's more than a cartoon villain so I do hope they have the balls to make her go dark.

[Le Cygne]

Yeah, I don't get the whole likeable thing. You don't have to like everybody in a story. You can like watching a character that's unlikeable in a fascinating way.

[Lord Spark of House Spark]

I agree for the most part. That the characters on the show lack the depth of the books. Show apologists will say that because we don't get the characters' inner thoughts that you can never portray them the same and that things have to dumbed down and there's no choice. But the HBO show has been changing character motivations significantly since the first season when it just is not necessary.

Catelyn begging Ned not to leave for King's Landing. Cersei claiming she had one of Robert's kids stillborn and crying right next to the boy where should be wake up he might recognize her. Having Drogo rape Dany over and over. Renaming characters because apparently fans are too stupid to differentiate between Robert the sickly boy and Robert the King. Or fans can't spot the difference between Osha and Asha so now we get 'Yara'. Beating the viewers over the head with Renly and Loras being gay. Littlefinger being such an obviously skilled player to the point where he's almost a comic book villain. Shae....I can't even.....

Things are changed to make them less complicated and more obvious to the viewer. If viewers are considered to be so stupid that they can't even follow two characters with the same name how can you possibly expect them to understand the motivations of morally inconsistent characters?

The results seem to be that more characters are whitewashed than others. When HBO wanted to simplify the characters it just happened that making whitewashed versions was more commonplace. I don't think that they deliberately set out to say "okay let's whitewash Tyrion and Cersei and Catelyn". But when they said "simplify those characters" the easiest way was to whitewash them.

I think that they actually do. At least D&D do. You get the sense that they know the books well enough in interviews. But their goal with this series was to make ASOIAF their own and have it reflect their own views and less of GRRM's intentions. They want the show to be simple. You can tell from the DVD commentaries and interviews that they understand the book depth but find shortcuts the easier approach.

The books have so many subtle references and theories. Alleras, R+L=J, Euron's egg and the Faceless Men, Bael the Bard, Oberyn poisoning Tywin, Knight of the Laughing Tree, Frey Pies and the Rat Cook, the visions and foreshadowing in the House of the Undying, Jaqen and the Alchemist, Arstan's identity, and so on.

The show makes everything too obvious. It's not the whitewashing that is the problem. It's the repeated simplification and refusal to move the show out of the shallow end and into the ocean of depth that the books have.

:agree:

All of this

[Le Cygne]

Characters that are too good and whitewashed are boring. I find show Tyrion to be pathetically boring. "Oh my god poor me I have to marry Sansa". Tyrion on the show has no depth. Every single scene is entirely predictable. This board knew that the show would make it so that Sansa not kneeling would be replaced by something to make Tyrion a white knight and Joffrey a monster. That's how obvious the show is becoming.

Yes to everything. Cersei, too. The only time there was a little depth, for the longest time, was in Blackwater. Tyrion thoughtlessly sacrificed the Hound to the wildfire, and Cersei was so delightfully wicked to Sansa and Lancel. Then back to the usual Tywin and Joffrey made me do it.

[Morienthar]

Some of us have taken to calling some of the moments on the show as Danychrist moments.

[ambi76]

As a Renly/Loras gal I have to say:

Show!Renly is waaaay nicer and gayer (21st century Kinsey 6++ gay actually) than in the books. One instant where that school of thrones parody made me lol is that they got "Renly the ridic closet gay jock" right.

Show!Loras I have heard called by Unsullied after season 3 is an "adorable clueless sweet gay puppy" (yeah, sure, and a mentally unstable killer, but we're not talking about this on the show, just about broaches).

Show!Tyrion is starting to annoy for entirely different reasons than book!Tyrion does around this time in the story.

No idea what they are planning with sweet show!Cersei, maybe her descent into insanity will be even sweeter there.

[silentwanderer]

Personally, I'm disgusted that they gave Ramsay a sense of humour...

Then again, Ramsay always had that sense of humor, his Reek impersonation was his twisted idea of "bonding" with Theon before the torture began.

ETA: The show gave him a different identity to play with but the idea behind it remains the same.

[Pinkie Baelish]

So, according to your sarcasm, you think TV Ramsay is more or less the same character as book Ramsay, right? And, am I right to assume you don't think book Ramsay had a sense of humor, since it seems like you find that sense of humor a quality that was added for the show?

The exclusion of Reek definitely dilutes the Ramsay/Theon dynamic, but I'd say the essence of the character is still preserved. He's still sadistic, loves playing vicious mind games, and has turned Theon into his plaything. Ramsay doesn't really have a sense of humour in the books. Well he does, but it's not really funny.

Is that why D&D removed all the sympathetic layers Cersei had in ACOK? Is that why they added Theon decapitating Rodrik in front of our own eyes, in a scene that, as I can recall, you see as an improvement of the source material?

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: I'm at a loss of deciding how to respond to this. If you seriously think Cersei is more sympathetic in ACOK than she is in season 2, there's absolutely nothing I can do to change your mind and I won't bother trying to do so. But I'll just leave

here.

The circumstances between Theon beheading Rodrik and beheading Farlen are very similar. It's Theon forced to do terrible things in order to save face. I regard it as an improvement because Rodrik is someone who the audience has more emotional attachment to than Farlen. Also, the books just glazed over Farlen's beheading, and it doesn't take up more than a few sentences. By lending Rodrik's death more screentime, the show made the scene more poignant and memorable. And despite this, Theon still comes off as more sympathetic due to one single scene - the letter burning scene.

And, last but not least, how can the tragedy of his story be enhanced, if: 1) his biggest crime, the one with the biggest consequences on the whole realm (fake deaths of B&R), was denied any impact on anything and anyone, including Theon himself (for example, his strict and explicit orders not to bury 'B&R' into the crypt, which might speak volumes if acted and filmed powerfully, were replaced in a way by somewhat light-minded scene in which he gives Dagmer gold for the peasant whose kids they killed), and 2) the character who actually turns the tragedy on Theon himself was completely removed from the second season?

His fall from grace has a certain level of tragedy that the show enhanced. I have repeatedly criticised the show for not showing the same repercussions of his actions on Robb and Cat, but that affects their arcs far more than it does to Theon. While Ramsay turning on Theon would have been great to see, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Theon's own men turning on him. In a way, it's more poetic, given that he does terrible things in order to earn their respect, only for them to turn their back on him when he needs them the most.

So, with this in mind, it seems you didn't like the books that much, right? Since, as you say, GRRM was jabbing a finger at us with his one-note villains, and since some of the crucial characters (I mean, Cersei is kinda the main reason for the war, while Theon's actions are the main reason the war ended the way it ended) were given sympathetic layers only in the show, you wouldn't agree with a general consensus that ASOIAF's success lays with so many grey characters?

A villain is only as good as his agenda. If it's understandable and believable, I'll enjoy the character. That's why I enjoy Tywin and Roose, even though they're as evil as you can get. They have a believable agenda. Other evil baddies like Ramsay and Gregor don't. Their agenda is far too basic and uninteresting. At least Tywin's rationale for doing terrible things is that he's doing it for the sake of the family name. There's not a single moment where Cersei does anything remotely kind or selfless. I'm sorry, I just don't find that believable. I've repeatedly praised Theon as a character, but even in his case, it seems like Martin goes out of his way to pencil him out as someone we should hate and gives no reason for us to think otherwise. This is especially prevalent in AGOT, and our first impressions of the character are already tainted with his kicking of Gared's head.

I'm not going to argue about Cersei and Theon's role in the war, because that's better suited for another thread.

[Weeping Sore]

Roose has a better haircut on the show. Vlad approves.

[Miodrag]

The exclusion of Reek definitely dilutes the Ramsay/Theon dynamic, but I'd say the essence of the character is still preserved. He's still sadistic, loves playing vicious mind games, and has turned Theon into his plaything. Ramsay doesn't really have a sense of humour in the books. Well he does, but it's not really funny.

Well, I was amused by book-Ramsay being amused by all the damage he's doing to others, while at the same time it didn't make him any more sympathetic as a person. Is it a sense of humor or not, it doesn't matter even, because it was lot more amusing than the show's attempt at jokes, like the sausage teasing in the season finale. (And I'm still to find out what that scene with two naked girls was, other than an obvious nude-quota request; maybe it was a humor, but I didn't get it then; and I'm not saying you're saying that was humorous, but that's the only scene other than the sausage one I can think of right know, that contains anything that resembles TV Ramsay's 'sense of humor'.)

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: I'm at a loss of deciding how to respond to this. If you seriously think Cersei is more sympathetic in ACOK than she is in season 2, there's absolutely nothing I can do to change your mind and I won't bother trying to do so. But I'll just leave

here.

No, man, I didn't say book Cersei is more sympathetic than TV Cersei. Just that there are some 'sympathetic' layers of book Cersei that were removed from the show, and replaced with some other 'sympatheticness'. Am I allowed to be unimpressed by the 'layers' they added to Cersei in the show, by the way? I mean, OK, you find her sympathetic in that scene you posted a link to, and many other viewers do to, and that's why I don't chastise the show for that scene. But, in all honesty, I saw nothing sympathetic there. If anything, she looks even more delusional than in the books. But, there's no need to dwell into that any deeper.

The circumstances between Theon beheading Rodrik and beheading Farlen are very similar. It's Theon forced to do terrible things in order to save face. I regard it as an improvement because Rodrik is someone who the audience has more emotional attachment to than Farlen. Also, the books just glazed over Farlen's beheading, and it doesn't take up more than a few sentences. By lending Rodrik's death more screentime, the show made the scene more poignant and memorable. And despite this, Theon still comes off as more sympathetic due to one single scene - the letter burning scene.

Poor sympathy would it be if dependent on one short scene. Don't mind me for saying this, but I really think you're disregarding everything Martin did in ACOK to portray Theon as conflicted over everything he has done. He's becoming conflicted over time, he isn't like that from the get-go, but he is conflicted. You didn't see that, but it doesn't mean it wasn't there. Especially if you read the book after the show, as I believe you said is the case, because you probably felt 'the letter scene' was somehow missing from ACOK. It wasn't, and I provided many examples of Theon being conflicted, and you never seem willing to address them, and all's fine, this is internet, but, once again, it doesn't mean Cogman added something that wasn't there - he only adapted it craftily, with the letter scene that maybe suits TV or GoT needs better, but he didn't invent anything with that scene.

As for Rodrik, he indeed is more familiar to the audience. That's why Martin used him and his daughter Theon threatens to kill in the negotiations at the end of the book. So, if you want to compare, in the book we have beheading of Farlen plus blackmailing of Rodrik, while in the show we have beheading of Rodrik. Good scene? Yeah, probably. An improvement? Sorry, but not at all. (And not to mention all Ironborn soldiers he orders to be killed, in order to protect the secret in the book.)

His fall from grace has a certain level of tragedy that the show enhanced. I have repeatedly criticised the show for not showing the same repercussions of his actions on Robb and Cat, but that affects their arcs far more than it does to Theon. While Ramsay turning on Theon would have been great to see, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Theon's own men turning on him. In a way, it's more poetic, given that he does terrible things in order to earn their respect, only for them to turn their back on him when he needs them the most.

What level of tragedy is enhanced in the show?! And the impact of his actions does affect his arc too, because in the book he isn't a weakling who kills "Bran&Rickon" at one moment and then tries to cover it at the next. He's a lost stronger Greyjoy than in the show, despite all the inner conflict he feels - which makes Balon's initial evaluation even more wrong an self-serving. And yes, there is much fundamentally wrong with Ironborn turning against him only to save their asses. Maybe it isn't wrong for the show universe, and honestly, I don't recognize that universe any more. But in the universe from the books, soldiers are usually much more loyal than that. Greyjoy soldiers especially. In ADWD Theon's sent to persuade Ironborn from Moat Calin to give up, because they're not expected to surrender any other way. And, thes how version certainly wasn't more poetic than Theon being overpowered by the psychopath he himself set free.

A villain is only as good as his agenda. If it's understandable and believable, I'll enjoy the character. That's why I enjoy Tywin and Roose, even though they're as evil as you can get. They have a believable agenda. Other evil baddies like Ramsay and Gregor don't. Their agenda is far too basic and uninteresting. At least Tywin's rationale for doing terrible things is that he's doing it for the sake of the family name. There's not a single moment where Cersei does anything remotely kind or selfless. I'm sorry, I just don't find that believable. I've repeatedly praised Theon as a character, but even in his case, it seems like Martin goes out of his way to pencil him out as someone we should hate and gives no reason for us to think otherwise. This is especially prevalent in AGOT, and our first impressions of the character are already tainted with his kicking of Gared's head.

You're entitled to understand and believe characters the way you find fit, of course. But, once again, Theon wasn't penciled out as someone we should hate without at least understanding him and his actions first. As for book Cersei, we finally agree, she is an egomaniac and she's pretty incapable of selfless actions, but at least she's presented with reasons for being that way. Whether you like what Martin created out of her or not, he did offer us more than a few causes for the way she turned out, and I'm not talking just about the prophecy. and, I'm not sure the same can be said for TV Cersei. I mean, her misplaced love for Robert isn't enough for an explanation, nor is it too logical if you think about it.

[David Selig]

At least Tywin's rationale for doing terrible things is that he's doing it for the sake of the family name. There's not a single moment where Cersei does anything remotely kind or selfless.

Everything Tywin does in the books is for himself. All the talk of family legacy is show only. Even there it's only talk really, at least so far, his answer to Tyrion asking him what had he sacrificed for the sake of the family was laughable.

Cersei's naked walk was way more selfless than anything Tywin ever did.

[winwolf]

all i can say is, Tyrion, Tyrion, Tyrion, and the imp.