Cersei Lannister the Sympathetic Villain

[Cas Stark]

I have never felt a nanosecond of sympathy for Cersei, not over her marriage, not when Joff died in her arms, not on her walk of shame.

She has been a demented killer and degenerate since she was TEN and pushed her best friend down the well.

[Pootie Tang]

I have never felt a nanosecond of sympathy for Cersei, not over her marriage, not when Joff died in her arms, not on her walk of shame.

She has been a demented killer and degenerate since she was TEN and pushed her best friend down the well.

I guess these threads are not for you then.

[Jon of the Dead]

Well, my definition of a sympathetic villain is someone whose actions I can at least understand but not support.

For instance, if a villain's motivation is to cause harm for the sake of it then he or she is not very sympathetic. In the case of Cersei I can understand why she does some of the things she does: she honestly believes she is the hero of her own story, protecting her children, etc.

That said, she's still a villain and even if she's one of my favorite characters I won't defend her actions, but at least I can see she has a motivation for them, unlike Ramsey, who could never in a million years be described as the hero of his own story. Even if asoiaf was entirely told from Ramsey's perspective he'd still be the villain.

[Starfell]

I think that part of the beauty of Cersei's character is that people are torn about whether to hate or pity her, and that this is pretty deliberate on GRRM's part.

We all feel for her situation where she is seen only as a marriageable commodity by her father, denied her inheritence, forced to adhere to a gender role which she hates (and, like Tyrion and Jaime, she turns the role thrust upon her into her "armour", using all of her feminine abilities to manipulate those around her) and being exposed to the sexist double standards of her society, all which is horribly unfair.

But, she herself is a completely reprehensible person thoroughly deserving of hatred, with nobody to blame for it but herself (the Melara incident very strongly implies that she started before Robert came along), and more or less sane enough to be held responsible for her own actions. Not to mention completely inept at ruling.

This dichotomy is, I think, best seen in the Walk of Shame. There's a curious thing in that we know that she deserves to be ritually humiliated and punished for her wrongdoings, and we feel triumph and catharsis seeing it happen to her. But she's being punished not for her actual crimes, but for something trivial and misogynistic, something which most of the readers wouldn't even consider to be wrong (correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as the law/Faith is concerned she was punished for having sex, not for why she was having sex).

I think that this is a deliberate ploy by GRRM to make us question the role of protagonists and antagonists in stories. He subjects an antagonist to something which we know is horribly immoral and wrong in order that we confront ourselves with our own hypocrisy when we cheer because it's happening to a bad person. He does this in small ways throughout the series but I think that the two biggies are the WoS and Wyman Manderly's comment about Little Walder's murder; again, we cheer at the epic burn, but on some level we also register that this man just mocked the close relatives of a dead child over said child's murder.

[Tetrarch42]

You would be completely entitled to that opinion, as would others be to disagree with it. The only difference between it and the authors' is that some people actually arrive at the authors' conclusion. I'd be hard pressed to find somebody defend Ramsay or Ser Gregor for instance, while Cersei actually has apologists.

So is the opinion further validated because a greater amount of people subscribe to it? Shouldn't opinions stand and fall entirely on their own merits, and be open to whatever ridicule and derision they may face?

Getting more on topic, it seems that the only specific criticisms the author makes of Cersei's character is that A. She's fiercely protective of an obviously bad person and poor ruler(which she then immediately subverts by saying that all women are hyperprotective of their children however malevolent they might be) and B.She bangs her brother(which seems like a rather minor misdeed, shouldn't two consenting adults be able to do what they want?)

[Blueberry Stark]

Cersei is a horrible ruler, mother, and person; in spite of all that, I still feel sympathy for her. When Joffery dies in her arms, when she thinks about Joffery dying, and when she is humiliated and temporarily broken during the Walk of Shame, I genuinely felt for her. I would for any person experiencing these events, albeit I totally understand and accept that many people won't agree with me. As someone mentioned earlier, it's subjective whether one feels sympathy towards a terrible, cruel person while he or she is suffering. The posted article, however, is poorly argued in my opinion. Hopefully the author has only seen the show, because if he or she has read the books, I believe that the writer needed to contend with many other facts in order to effectively argue that Cersei is sympathetic. For instance, account for some of her truly awful crimes, not just focus on the stuff that almost everyone can get past like banging Jaime and loving Joffery.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This dichotomy is, I think, best seen in the Walk of Shame. There's a curious thing in that we know that she deserves to be ritually humiliated and punished for her wrongdoings, and we feel triumph and catharsis seeing it happen to her. But she's being punished not for her actual crimes, but for something trivial and misogynistic, something which most of the readers wouldn't even consider to be wrong (correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as the law/Faith is concerned she was punished for having sex, not for why she was having sex).

Probably the absolute best way to word this. There is an absolute crap ton of despicable deeds to lay at Cersei's feet, including murder and the attempted murder of innocent children. So for her to get punished in what basically amounts to state-sanctioned slutshaming feels ... sour. It's like Al Capone getting busted for tax evasion.

[Mladen]

I am type of guy who always feel sorry when sees/reads someone's downfall. It is stronger than me... I hate Cersei, I hate everything she has done, but during her walk of shame, I couldn't stop cursing all those people. I felt the same way with Jaime, Theon and so on... I mean there is certainly a line in that, but someone really has to be pure evil for me not to feel bad about their downfall... For me, Cersei is such tragic character beautifully written psychopath... What to say, I am gentle soul...

I am a thousand winds that blow,

I am the diamond glints on snow,

I am the sunlight on ripened grain,

I am the gentle autumn rain.

When you awaken in the morning’s hush

I am the swift uplifting rush

Of quiet birds in circled flight.

I am the soft stars that shine at night.

[PatrickStormborn]

I think we're clearly supposed to sympathise with Cersei: she was orphaned at an early age, brainwashed by her father, raped and abused and cheated on by her husband, and then she had to watch her son die in her arms.

But that doesn't mean she should be forgiven for her crimes, or that they should be forgotten.

[Sansa_Stark]

Sounds like somebody who didn't read the books. According to that article the only bad thing Cersei has done was have sex with Jaime and try to be a strong woman in a man's world. It doesn't even touch her crimes and what she's done.

If that person has read the books and still thinks that way, then I think they have to reread her chapters without the golden tinted glasses on.

Cersei deserves everything she has gotten, plus much, much more.

This is pretty much the basis for Cersei apology. Both this and her being a victim at Robert's hands.

Most everyone who defends Cersei and calls her sympathetic just like to pretend things like Falyse Stokeworth's, Blue Bard, Barra, or Mycah never happened.

[direwolf_of_white_fangs]

you got one right, she is a villain of sorts....but she is not sympathetic.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Trying to be taken seriously as a woman in charge? The only time she isn't taken seriously is when Tywin shuts her down. Everyone else, even Tyrion, sees and somewhat respects Cersei's power and status until she digs herself a hole in AFFC. She literally has the Kingsgaurd at her beck and call most of the series. If anything she's guilty of overreaching. Queen isn't enough, son as the King isn't enough, her dynasty controlling the throne, not enough. She's overly hungry for power and trips over her own feet trying to get more, more, more. She literally outright thinks to herself that she should be a male because then she'd be able to kill all her enemies with her own hands. That's not sympathetic. That's just pathetic. She's literally the most powerful woman in Westeros, if not the world, and it's not good enough for her.

That's not even touching her sociopathic attitude towards anyone that isn't herself. And why should I be sympathetic because she "loves her kids"? Most parents in the series do. Doesn't stop Cersei from having innocent people physically tortured to punish her son. I doubt she even loves her kids like a mother does anyway. She treats them like possessions, not people, just like she treats everyone she can like toys that have to do what she says. Her fear of losing her kids revolves around her need for control, in my opinion, not her "love" for them. She doesn't know how to love. She physically tortured a baby when she was what, 10? Sympathetic. Hah. If Ramsey tops the pyschopath list, Cersei comes second for sure.

[The Red Hand]

I think we're clearly supposed to sympathise with Cersei: she was orphaned at an early age, brainwashed by her father, raped and abused and cheated on by her husband, and then she had to watch her son die in her arms.

But that doesn't mean she should be forgiven for her crimes, or that they should be forgotten.

:agree:

I think it's hard to read through the WoS or the Purple Wedding without feeling at least a little sorry for Cersei. Unfortunately the other despicable parts of her character prevent me from sympathizing with her like I do with Jaime and Theon.

[Petyr Patter]

This dichotomy is, I think, best seen in the Walk of Shame. There's a curious thing in that we know that she deserves to be ritually humiliated and punished for her wrongdoings, and we feel triumph and catharsis seeing it happen to her. But she's being punished not for her actual crimes, but for something trivial and misogynistic, something which most of the readers wouldn't even consider to be wrong (correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as the law/Faith is concerned she was punished for having sex, not for why she was having sex).

Slightly off topic, but I disagree with this. Yes, the official reason for her punishment was sleeping with men outside of marriage, but not adultery (and thus very real treason) because she only confessed to coitus after Robert died.

I see it as convicting Capone on tax evasion. Cersei looks so very guilty at this point of murdering the previous High Septon and framing Margaery for treason. Even more broadly, the High Sparrow is fed up with the incredible cruelty shown by the Lannister ruling elite in the War of Robert's Succession (It never was a war of 5 kings). His first act as High Septon is to gather the bones of all the clergy and fill the yard with them. And there are also the women raped and the property destroyed. If a field burns, someone is going to starve for it. Yet, she insists on trial by combat and thus may walk. Even the confession they do manage to wring out of her just sounds insincere. Read it aloud to yourself, you'll hear what I mean. It almost feels petty to point out she stiffed the Faith 1,000,000 dragons, a fortune that he would have used to feed and clothe the many displaced. I think the High Sparrow knows he's being fed baloney, but is trying to find a balanced solution.

Hence, the walk of shame. It may or may not have been the most severe punishment for Cersei, but it was the one that broke her ability to rule the city, and thus ended one of the great threats to the realm.

[Sansa_Stark]

Slightly off topic, but I disagree with this. Yes, the official reason for her punishment was sleeping with men outside of marriage, but not adultery (and thus very real treason) because she only confessed to coitus after Robert died.

I see it as convicting Capone on tax evasion. Cersei looks so very guilty at this point of murdering the previous High Septon and framing Margaery for treason. Even more broadly, the High Sparrow is fed up with the incredible cruelty shown by the Lannister ruling elite in the War of Robert's Succession (It never was a war of 5 kings). His first act as High Septon is to gather the bones of all the clergy and fill the yard with them. And there are also the women raped and the property destroyed. If a field burns, someone is going to starve for it. Yet, she insists on trial by combat and thus may walk. Even the confession they do manage to wring out of her just sounds insincere. Read it aloud to yourself, you'll hear what I mean. It almost feels petty to point out she stiffed the Faith 1,000,000 dragons, a fortune that he would have used to feed and clothe the many displaced. I think the High Sparrow knows he's being fed baloney, but is trying to find a balanced solution.

Hence, the walk of shame. It may or may not have been the most severe punishment for Cersei, but it was the one that broke her ability to rule the city, and thus ended one of the great threats to the realm.

The Walk in the Park was done imo, because Cersei slighted the Faith by having the old high septon killed.

Remember, by killing him, Cersei is basically saying/showing that she defying the religion and if she escapes punishment she can basically say that she is nearly equal or above the gods. And that kind of hubris is looked down upon in Westeros. Its like how they say Tywin Lannister was punished with a dwarf child for thinking himself above a king. Cersei was being punished for thinking herself equal to the gods or so.

The High Sparrow clearly had evidence that Cersei was guilty of this, yet she insisted on a trial of combat which we all know is bullshit. The Sparrow is a smart guy, he should know that trial by combat is bull and he couldn't just let Cersei get away with her crimes. So he decided to baptize Cersei. By having her stripped naked and walked through King's Landing, his message was more "you are a mortal, aging woman, a fallible human" and not solely just because he's a misogynist. If you reread his conversation with Cersei, you will find that he thinks Cersei having sex was trivial compared to her other crimes.

Hell, even Kevan Lannister might have said something like.

"In gold and silk and emeralds Cersei had been a queen, the next thing to a goddess; naked, she was only human, an aging woman with stretch marks on her belly and teats that had begun to sag … as the shrews in the crowds had been glad to point out to their husbands and lovers."

I can't help but feel this comparison wasn't too much of a coincidence.

Point is, the walk of shame was to remind Cersei she was a human, no matter how high she went or how much power she amassed.

[Martell Spy]

Really hard to tell yet what the High Sparrow's motives are. If he fully disbelives Cersei, he is a very good poker player and doesn't reveal that to Cersei or the reader. Was the Walk to in essence cripple Cersei politically? Was it just the High Sparrow's and the religions hangup about sex? Or is he just extracting whatever type of punishment he can?

Not even guranteed the WOS ruined her politically yet. Kevan Lannister thought so, which implies it strongly. But he isn't the omnipotent master of politics Varys is.

[Gneisenau]

Snape isn't a villain, so I have to question the list the OP mentioned.

[The Wolves]

I would have had a little sympathy for Cersei if she hadn't handed over innocent people to Qyburn for his 'experiments'.

I lost all sympathy for Cersei when her and her brother caused the deaths of thousands.

I could understand what she did for some things but she had power and knew her actions could lead to many deaths, rapes, and broken homes but she didn't care so I can't sympathize with her at all.

[illrede]

Cersei took the slack that Ned gave her to save her children with and used it to win the game of thrones. The moment the war had been won and one of her children was secure on the throne, she justified keeping his power and authority to herself for as long as she could, and longer than she should, keeping him juvenile and ignorant. She likes to think that she loves her children. When tested, she doesn't. Then she goes back to thinking that she loves her children. Because she likes to think it. She's a pure villian with power. If such beasts weren't historically known, I'd think she was a ridiculous carictature.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Cersei has some relatable qualities. That does not make her sympathetic.