Cersei Lannister the Sympathetic Villain

[Blueberry Stark]

At first I thought that it had to be about the show, but now I think it's definitely supposed to be about the books. It actually reads:

8. Cersei Lannister from "A Song of Ice and Fire" series

I seriously doubt that this author has read the series. I quickly skimmed the other selections, and it seems like a complete fluff piece where most the meat of the article was gleaned from book summaries. Someone earlier said this site has no editor, and I have no idea if this is true, but I bet Cersei was chosen because the series and show are so popular, and Lena Heady is really pretty. In other words, it's very insightful literary criticism.

[The Frosted King]

Being sympathetic toward a person never negates the horrible things they have done; the horrible things that Cersei has done only make extending compassion more difficult. But because it's difficult doesn't mean that compassion should be completely withheld. In my own opinion.

It's an easy thing to be sympathetic to Sam Tarly for example. He's a genuinely good person with a good heart. He also doesn't need nearly as much sympathy as someone like Cersei does. She won't be able to begin any kind of redemption in her life unless somebody at some point has some compassion for her (if some measure of redemption is indeed possible at all; one never knows about that). In my own opinion.

For all the reasons enumerated so well in this thread, Cersei Lannister has completely wrecked her own and many other lives and that's putting it mildly. But such things cannot be overcome with hatred and repugnance, only with compassion. Extending compassion toward anyone can never be considered to be a bad thing.

Again, I am absolutely not excusing her for her atrocities. I just think that such a monstrosity - even self-inflicted monstrousness - as Cersei Lannister is cause for sadness and hence, compassion.

In the final analysis, W.W.S.M.D.? What Would Septon Meribald Do?

Ned had mercy for her, and even went so far as to offer her the chance of exile.

She repaid that with the killing of his guards, and the senseless murders of all his people.

She said not a word, nor made a move to defend his daughter who erroneously tipped her off and gave her a hostage, against the sadistic and stupid whims of her vile, shitstain of a son.

Cersei has shown that she wouldn't appreciate sympathy, and even more clearly imo, proven that she doesn't deserve mercy.

She went from selling those who wronged her into slavery, to murdering those who potentially endangered her, to outright fabrication of evidence merely because of envy and malevolence.

Her enormities only grow as time passes, and people are expected to find sympathy/ empathy for the woman?!

The only thing that need be found for her is a noose, for she's lived too ugly a life to warrant a blade.

Catelyn should be sympathized with. Brienne as well.

Sansa most assuredly.

Cersei gets a scoff and a side eye.

[Ser_Cortnay_Penrose]

Cersei is the 2nd least sympathetic, 2nd least forgivable villain in the series (Ramsay of course).

Beyond the point already well made, I'm going to go ahead and disagree that she truly loves her children:

She should have run. her children have been in peril since the day of their birth, dangling by the thin thread of Robert not knowing their biological identities. If Jon Arryn found the truth before Lysa killed him, they're all dead. Ned doesn't offer her mercy and warn her of his knowledge, they're all dead. The prophecy continues to hold true, they die as kings and queens. Unless Cersei wins the Game of Throne through her endless lies and threats and bribes and betrayals, her children die. She values power and glory and position more than her children. She's horribly paranoid about them, but she never makes a sacrifice to ensure their safety. Not when she was banging Jaime at Winterfell. Not while Joffrey was alive. Not after he died, as she threw gas on the flames and pissed on her alliances and blindly made enemies out of vengeance and paranoia.

She's driven by an absurd sense of entitlement, a blind ambition, and an endless paranoia, of Tyrion in particular. A weird passion for her children and their "rights" comes after all that, I'd say.

[amanofhonor]

Well, Ned Stark showed her compassion, didn't he? He told her he knew her secret and gave her a chance to save her life and leave Westeros with her children. And we know how that turned out.

So, I think we already know how Cersei repays compassion, because she sees it as weakness, something to be preyed upon and used.

You can't, honestly think that Cersei and her children would've been safe if they left Westeros. She made the best choice she could. Ned was a fool. An honorable fool and he died.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

We do? How? It's mentioned plenty of times in the article that it's about book characters.

I stand corrected, even though it still looks like the show's popularity is what precipitated Cersei's inclusion. If anything that makes the writer's opinion even more ridiculous.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You can't, honestly think that Cersei and her children would've been safe if they left Westeros. She made the best choice she could. Ned was a fool. An honorable fool and he died.

So Ned should've kept his mouth shut that he was on to her and told Robert so that they DEFINITELY would've been killed? Like I'm confused as to what you think should've happened here.

[amanofhonor]

Well for one, he shouldn't have told Cersei he knows the truth. Then, accept Renly's help to seize control of the royal children.

[Naathi Prince]

Again, there's sympathy and empathy. Empathy says "oh wow, that is a tough circumstance I can understand how you feel terrible right now". Sympathy is "oh wow, you poor thing, I feel genuine concern for your future well being"

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well for one, he shouldn't have told Cersei he knows the truth. Then, accept Renly's help to seize control of the royal children.

So he shouldn't have told Robert the truth and let Renly, who should not be king, take control of the children? I'm not following.

[Chaircat Meow]

Renly wasn't asking to be king when he met Ned that night in the books, that was just the show.

[SeanF]

To be fair to Cersei, she didn't want Ned to die.

[Arthur Dayne's Honor]

To be fair to Cersei, she didn't want Ned to die.

she still put him in that situation

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

she still put him in that situation

And it was her son whom she never tried to discipline who screwed the pooch.

[Arthur Dayne's Honor]

And it was her son whom she never tried to discipline who screwed the pooch.

I think that if Robert actually took an active role in raising Joffrey then he could have turned out alot better. I mean he would still be an inbred sociopath but he could have channeled that into tourneys and the like cuz I think what he really wanted was his fathers love and approval.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

So Ned should've kept his mouth shut that he was on to her and told Robert so that they DEFINITELY would've been killed? Like I'm confused as to what you think should've happened here.

Not to stir things up, but by telling Cersei, Ned didn't showed compassion. He showed naiveté. Who would in sane mind give someone such a crucial information about themselves and truly expect them to remain helpless? I can't blame Cersei for protecting herself and the royal children. She even tried other ways to keep him quiet - Trying to seduce him - so, It seemed that arresting him was her last resort, because she knew the uprising it would cause. And to even mix up more, why didn't he do it after Sansa and Arya were safely on their way home? Ned's sense of honor cost his children a life of pain and abuse, not to mention being naive enough to believe people would follow Robert's will made him refuse Renly's offer, and thus, created his own demise. And to even add more, Cersei never meant to kill him, but banish him to the Wall. One could argue she was compassionate then (Though I don't agree). I'd pick Ned over Cersei anyday, but in that particular moment, Ned lacked the cunning needed to survive in KL.

And it was her son whom she never tried to discipline who screwed the pooch.

While I agree that parents are the main source of discipline to their children, you can't truly blame a son's mistake on a parent. As we see during the books, even sons that had present parents (Robb) made choices that highly disregarded their parents's usual opinions and wishes (Catelyn/Ned). Can you blame them? Also, Cersei's fault with Joffrey is the same amount as Robert's. Both were horrible parents.

I think that if Robert actually took an active role in raising Joffrey then he could have turned out alot better. I mean he would still be an inbred sociopath but he could have channeled that into tourneys and the like cuz I think what he really wanted was his fathers love and approval.

I agree. But even then, I'd still expect him to show signs of sociopathy, though maybe with more attention, he'd be less violent and agressive. Like you said, maybe he'd have channeled it on Tourneys or other forms of release.

[Ser_Cortnay_Penrose]

Not to stir things up, but by telling Cersei, Ned didn't showed compassion. He showed naiveté. Who would in sane mind give someone such a crucial information about themselves and truly expect them to remain helpless? I can't blame Cersei for protecting herself and the royal children. She even tried other ways to keep him quiet - Trying to seduce him - so, It seemed that arresting him was her last resort, because she knew the uprising it would cause. And to even mix up more, why didn't he do it after Sansa and Arya were safely on their way home? Ned's sense of honor cost his children a life of pain and abuse, not to mention being naive enough to believe people would follow Robert's will made him refuse Renly's offer, and thus, created his own demise. And to even add more, Cersei never meant to kill him, but banish him to the Wall. One could argue she was compassionate then (Though I don't agree). I'd pick Ned over Cersei anyday, but in that particular moment, Ned lacked the cunning needed to survive in KL.

But really the best way to protect her children would be to take Ned's advice and flea. If she truly loved Jaime and her children she would have fled long before any of this came to pass. Perhaps Robert would have followed her to the ends of the earth...but with her resources and a good escape plan, I think her odds are much better than indefinitely keeping this enormous but thinly veiled secret, especially in the face of the war it caused. As I've said, if her true priority was protecting her children, fleaing was the best bet, especially in light of the prophecy that haunts her constantly.

But no, a lion doesn't flea. Cersei is queen, though this title being based on deceit and treason doesn't stop her from condescending the family legitimacy or nobility or condescending the "treasons" of others, even in her thoughts!! She must have the throne, her son must be king, at the cost of her children's constant peril and a life of secrecy, lies, and betrayal....and then she sends innocent people down to Qyburns dungeons...just 'cause. Jesus people there are other brave, ambitious women who love their children in this series...

[Lord Ronin]

Cersei is a psycho-bitch, there is no sympathy for her

[Alayne's Shadow.]

But really the best way to protect her children would be to take Ned's advice and flea. If she truly loved Jaime and her children she would have fled long before any of this came to pass. Perhaps Robert would have followed her to the ends of the earth...but with her resources and a good escape plan, I think her odds are much better than indefinitely keeping this enormous but thinly veiled secret, especially in the face of the war it caused. As I've said, if her true priority was protecting her children, fleaing was the best bet, especially in light of the prophecy that haunts her constantly.

But no, a lion doesn't flea. Cersei is queen, though this title being based on deceit and treason doesn't stop her from condescending the family legitimacy or nobility or condescending the "treasons" of others, even in her thoughts!! She must have the throne, her son must be king, at the cost of her children's constant peril and a life of secrecy, lies, and betrayal....and then she sends innocent people down to Qyburns dungeons...just 'cause. Jesus people there are other brave, ambitious women who love their children in this series...

I don't think fleeing was the best option, because Robert would make sure she'd never rest one second. while she was still alive. Resources end eventually, and how much would Tywin be able to support them, if he would, really? I don't think fleeing was the best option, rather than staying in power. Besides, the evidence Ned had is easily contested, because there aren't paternity tests in Westeros. It makes no sense for her to run, especially considering she had the power to stay and fight. By running, she'd sign up her eventual death. I agree with you, but my point was never that she loves her children, or she did what she did out of love, but out for self-preservation, and as she sees them as extensions of herself, her children. And to protect herself, It does seem to make more sense to me to stay than to escape. And to play the devil's advocate once more, Cersei is Queen not by lie and deceit. She married the King when Jon Arryn made the match of her to Robert. The position in itself of Queen of Westeros is actually righteous. Other than that, I agree with you. She's truly a despicable person.

[kephv]

I'm rooting for her, but I don't really have much sympathy for someone so blissfully ignorant. That said, she's been growing on me a bit.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

Well, Ned Stark showed her compassion, didn't he? He told her he knew her secret and gave her a chance to save her life and leave Westeros with her children. And we know how that turned out.

So, I think we already know how Cersei repays compassion, because she sees it as weakness, something to be preyed upon and used.

Basically this. Compassion is admirable, but even it has its limits.

I have to say - completely without any sarcasm - that these comments amused me far more than they should have. So Ned Stark was wrong to offer mercy to Cersei Lannister because he himself didn't get any material benefit from it. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what the Buddha was going on about when he was advocating compassion for all living things - as long as you get something out of it! :rofl:

Ah, well. Carry on. :drunk: