|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 02 2013 23:28 -Archangel- wrote:
You are misunderstanding me. I did say he could have brought him to Lord Commander for punishment (and it would have been the same) and used the opportunity to find out how real is this threat. No, but he ignored it and then later went south to continue ignoring it. He could have investigated further and told the King there is a real threat beyond the Wall. Of course the whole story would have went differently then but it still does not make Ned choice better. In my mind it makes Robb executing Karstark similar.
I was never under the impression they choose to ignore that threat. They just didn't take it as seriously as we (as viewers) did. You have to put yourself in the state of mind of people in the story. The wall was built long ago to defend the 7 kingdoms from a threat that hasn't been scene for centuries. Sure people still know about it and keep and eye on it (that's the Night's Watch's job) but nobody takes it as seriously as they might have centuries ago.
Btw Tyrion doesn't ignore it, he brings this matter to discussion in his first visit of the small council in season 1 but nobody (his sister, Varys, Pycelle) takes him seriously. Though he kind of insists on the fact that this time there might be more happening than cavemen wandering around the wall with their sticks.
We also have to take into account that in this world (just as ours actually...) people with their back against the wall (ahahah) would do anything to survive .... even lie of course. There probably are desertors all the time. You just can't go on an investigation for whatever excuse everyone single on of them gives you.
As for the parallel with Robb's choice to execute Kastark, I won't pronounce myself on the symbolic of the weather and how it could reflect him making a worst decision than his father did when he executed that desertor, but i's pretty obvious those 2 scenes echo one another and Robb has to take his responsibilities and do a king's duty, as his father did.
|
Okay, about Jaime and the Bathtub Scene and all that jazz.
1) People seem to be forgetting that Jaime is, unambiguously and apologetically, a bad guy. Maybe he's a bad guy for certain reasons, and let's face it, growing up with Tywin as daddy could easily be enough, never mind the kingslayer stuff, but he's still a bad guy. He would rather kill a child than go through the hard work of silencing/discrediting him. He killed his own cousin, probably unnessecarily, in an escape attempt right after having a heart-to-heart with the guy, in the most manipulative scene we've seen so far. He has also been consistently manipulative towards Brienne. Notice that he started off by trolling her consistently, looking for a weakness. Then he found out she was in love with Renly, then suddenly he's all honorable knight in shining armor. Oh, and let's not forget how he ruthlessly executed Ned's guards just to goad Ned into dueling him.
2) This I'm less sure about. But isn't the whole bathtub thing basically false? I mean, yes, the whole wildfire, Pycelle, etc. part was certainly credible. But the whole "I told no-one because they wouldn't believe me" shtick. He did tell people. Robert didn't ask questions when Jaime mentioned the Mad King's last words, and in the scene with Robert, the Mad King had been saying them for hours before Jaime finally killed him.
|
Maybe jamie is bad but he's not all that bad
from a morals perspective, so what he kills some random high born young guys. There have been 1000's like them killed because they were poor and were drafted. So from jamies perspective whats 1 more killing? It only seems bad because you identify with the characters personally.
Once you're a solider for that long I imagine it's going to be hard to rationalize that life is sacred or some bullshit like that when he's seen the true face of war.
I think he's just a chaotic guy he feels like nothing really matters and he's just in it for the ride at this point. He doesn't want to make the world a worse place for sure (if his argument for killing aegon is to be believed) but he doesn't seem to believe in being able to make it better either. I guess in the DnD scale he would be a chaotic neutral.
|
On May 03 2013 00:13 Yoav wrote:
Okay, about Jaime and the Bathtub Scene and all that jazz.
1) People seem to be forgetting that Jaime is, unambiguously and apologetically, a bad guy. Maybe he's a bad guy for certain reasons, and let's face it, growing up with Tywin as daddy could easily be enough, never mind the kingslayer stuff, but he's still a bad guy. He would rather kill a child than go through the hard work of silencing/discrediting him. He killed his own cousin, probably unnessecarily, in an escape attempt right after having a heart-to-heart with the guy, in the most manipulative scene we've seen so far. He has also been consistently manipulative towards Brienne. Notice that he started off by trolling her consistently, looking for a weakness. Then he found out she was in love with Renly, then suddenly he's all honorable knight in shining armor. Oh, and let's not forget how he ruthlessly executed Ned's guards just to goad Ned into dueling him.
2) This I'm less sure about. But isn't the whole bathtub thing basically false? I mean, yes, the whole wildfire, Pycelle, etc. part was certainly credible. But the whole "I told no-one because they wouldn't believe me" shtick. He did tell people. Robert didn't ask questions when Jaime mentioned the Mad King's last words, and in the scene with Robert, the Mad King had been saying them for hours before Jaime finally killed him.
First part is totally true, the whole point of this scene and his latest moments (explaining who Brienne "is" so she doesn't get raped ...) is to give the spectator some sense of empathy toward what was considered to be a horrible character so far.
Second part though I don't agree. I think this moment is probably the one true genuine confession we get from him (and actually if you watch the "Into Episode 5" video on the OP it's pretty clear it is). He's a knight, he made a vow, he tried his best to stand true to it but he couldn't in the end. Though he might have done it for the greater cause, like he says "the honourable Ned Stark" didn't see anything else but the broken vow when he saw Jaime with the mad king's body. Scene is really explicit actually and it's pretty cynical to doubt it.
|
On May 03 2013 00:13 Yoav wrote:
Okay, about Jaime and the Bathtub Scene and all that jazz.
1) People seem to be forgetting that Jaime is, unambiguously and apologetically, a bad guy. Maybe he's a bad guy for certain reasons, and let's face it, growing up with Tywin as daddy could easily be enough, never mind the kingslayer stuff, but he's still a bad guy. He would rather kill a child than go through the hard work of silencing/discrediting him. He killed his own cousin, probably unnessecarily, in an escape attempt right after having a heart-to-heart with the guy, in the most manipulative scene we've seen so far. He has also been consistently manipulative towards Brienne. Notice that he started off by trolling her consistently, looking for a weakness. Then he found out she was in love with Renly, then suddenly he's all honorable knight in shining armor. Oh, and let's not forget how he ruthlessly executed Ned's guards just to goad Ned into dueling him.
2) This I'm less sure about. But isn't the whole bathtub thing basically false? I mean, yes, the whole wildfire, Pycelle, etc. part was certainly credible. But the whole "I told no-one because they wouldn't believe me" shtick. He did tell people. Robert didn't ask questions when Jaime mentioned the Mad King's last words, and in the scene with Robert, the Mad King had been saying them for hours before Jaime finally killed him.
Jaime may be a horrible person, and may be really really good at playing people for his gain... But I really don't know if I can believe that he is THAT good of a liar to show the kind of vulnerability he did in that scene. It seems that since the scene where Brienne told him to stop acting like a woman, he became completely vulnerable to her, and this scene really made that clear to me. He has been holding onto his "shtick" as you say for so long, and he finally has someone that he can talk to for real.
|
Jamie certainly isn't a good guy, but he isn't straight up evil either. In season 1, he used to be an arrogant, sister-fucking, cynical, manipulative murderer. While that's still true, now we've learned that he's also a product of his environment who had to make decisions with no possible good outcome due to unlucky circumstances, and things aren't only black and white.
|
On May 03 2013 00:32 Scorch wrote:
Jamie certainly isn't a good guy, but he isn't straight up evil either. In season 1, he used to be an arrogant, sister-fucking, cynical, manipulative murderer. While that's still true, now we've learned that he's also a product of his environment who had to make decisions with no possible good outcome due to unlucky circumstances, and things aren't only black and white.
I would say he's a man capable of good and evil, but has definitely done evil things. He deserves to be thrown out of a window, but then again he's a likable character. I wish his hand wasn't cut off, so we could see his skill in battle...oh well.
|
On May 03 2013 00:43 Thor.Rush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:32 Scorch wrote:
Jamie certainly isn't a good guy, but he isn't straight up evil either. In season 1, he used to be an arrogant, sister-fucking, cynical, manipulative murderer. While that's still true, now we've learned that he's also a product of his environment who had to make decisions with no possible good outcome due to unlucky circumstances, and things aren't only black and white. I would say he's a man capable of good and evil, but has definitely done evil things. He deserves to be thrown out of a window, but then again he's a likable character. I wish his hand wasn't cut off, so we could see his skill in battle...oh well.
It's good to see people being in conflict on how to feel about Jaime's character. Bad guys can be likable.
|
Why are you guys all so eager to classify the charakters as good and evil?
Those simplistic concepts are not something you can actually apply to the charakters.
Every charakter has their motivations and does things because of them.
Saying somone is "good" or "evil" is spitting on the complexity of the charakters.
Stop it.
|
On May 03 2013 00:50 TotalNightmare wrote:
Why are you guys all so eager to classify the charakters as good and evil?
Those simplistic concepts are not something you can actually apply to the charakters.
Every charakter has their motivations and does things because of them.
Saying somone is "good" or "evil" is spitting on the complexity of the charakters.
Stop it.
I hate being a grammar nazi but it's character T.T
I agree with your statement though.
|
On May 03 2013 00:50 TotalNightmare wrote:
Why are you guys all so eager to classify the charakters as good and evil?
Those simplistic concepts are not something you can actually apply to the charakters.
Every charakter has their motivations and does things because of them.
Saying somone is "good" or "evil" is spitting on the complexity of the charakters.
Stop it.
We know that......we're just being lazy with our words.. I did not classify Jamie as good or evil. I said he was capable of both. I'm just using those terms just to simplify the discussion.
I'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would not classify a character to be simply "good" or "evil" but maybe i'm wrong..and in that case, I'm sorry x)
|
There's a scene on season 2 where Catelyn is talking with Jamie where she says that he breaks his vows and he replies with something like: "I made a vow to protect the king and to protect the people, what should I do when the king starts to harm the people." or something like that.
I think he is the kind of guy that does whatever it takes to protect what he loves and that is hard to classify as hero or villain.
|
On May 03 2013 01:26 Tur wrote:
There's a scene on season 2 where Catelyn is talking with Jamie where she says that he breaks his vows and he replies with something like: "I made a vow to protect the king and to protect the people, what should I do when the king starts to harm the people." or something like that.
I think he is the kind of guy that does whatever it takes to protect what he loves and that is hard to classify as hero or villain.
That's the beauty of the show/books - no one is blatantly good or evil, everyone has both in them and it is completely subjective.
|
Big moment for Jaime (before losing his hand) was random guy greeting and suggesting Brienne to kill him. Both did know that they might get caught because of that but Brienne played honor part that made Jaime respect her.
Then second was when they were tied up with and Jaime started discussing that you will get raped later that evening. He helped Brienne that fact he lost his hand. I bet Brienne is going to benefit well from Jaime if they do get to the King's Landing.
|
On May 03 2013 02:03 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Big moment for Jaime (before losing his hand) was random guy greeting and suggesting Brienne to kill him. Both did know that they might get caught because of that but Brienne played honor part that made Jaime respect her.
Then second was when they were tied up with and Jaime started discussing that you will get raped later that evening. He helped Brienne that fact he lost his hand. I bet Brienne is going to benefit well from Jaime if they do get to the King's Landing.
To be fair helping Brienne didnt cost him his hand. I think it was the attempt to bribe his captors after with his promises of daddy that cost him the hand.
Still he respects Brienne indeed and the fact he saved her made Brienne respect him.
|
On May 03 2013 01:09 Thor.Rush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 00:50 TotalNightmare wrote:
Why are you guys all so eager to classify the charakters as good and evil?
Those simplistic concepts are not something you can actually apply to the charakters.
Every charakter has their motivations and does things because of them.
Saying somone is "good" or "evil" is spitting on the complexity of the charakters.
Stop it. We know that......we're just being lazy with our words.. I did not classify Jamie as good or evil. I said he was capable of both. I'm just using those terms just to simplify the discussion. I'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would not classify a character to be simply "good" or "evil" but maybe i'm wrong..and in that case, I'm sorry x)
Certainly. And pretty much every moral philosophy since the beginning of time has acknowledged this, in noble cases by asserting the possibility of forgiveness and in baser ones by saying that since we all do bad things, there's no point in fighting it.
So you're left with spectra, and different kinds of moral compass. The Lawful/Chaotic Good/Evil dichotomy set is one, fairly simplistic, way of getting at this, and one which works pretty well in our universe. But it should probably be expanded to include:
Loyalty to Oaths/Disregard for Oaths
Loyalty to Family/Disregard for Family
Loyalty to Justice/Disregard for Justice
Our ethical-monotheistic heritage means that most viewers (in the abstract) regard Justice highly, Oaths secondly, and Family thirdly, if at all. Some would switch the order of Oaths and Family, and many consider friends and family in the same group.
As for the show:
Littlefinger would be one pole of this: he has no regard for any of the three, though I suppose his desire for vengeance could come out as a weak form of justice. But generally he's just an amoral guy.
Ned Stark, obviously, forms the other pole: oaths, justice, and family, in that order.
The other Starks still value all three (and are thus the "good guys") thought the order of valuation varies.
Robb is similar to Ned, though his regard for oaths is clearly somewhat less.
Catelyn (sp?) conflicts with Robb by valuing family over justice.
The Lannisters generally value family over oaths, and have almost no concern at all with justice.
Stannis values oaths very highly, and seems to identify them with justice, which means that if we believe in justice as an independent thing, we must say that Stannis has no regard for it at all.
*to add more later*
|
On May 02 2013 07:12 ecstazy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 05:58 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Actually, pushing Bran really wasnt evil. I mean clearly it was an immoral action, but I think the evil of hurting a child is outweighed in this case by what it avoids. If Bran didnt die [or at least lost his memory] he would expose Jaimes incest. Which means his three children would be put to death, who are innocents in all this, and his sister and himself would be branded traitors. Thus sparking a civil war against the Lannisters, resulting, ultimately, in his death, his brothers death, his father and his sisters, nevermind the tens of thousands from combat and disease. I'd of pushed the fucker out the window too.
That's a bit far just for keeping him quiet, don't you think? I believe there is a scene in season 1 where cersei and jaime themselves agree that pushing him was a bad idea. At least Cersei definitely stated that she could have tried to reason with Bran instead. There both being sentimental idiots then. You cant convince an eight year old not to mention incest between two of the most famous individuals in westeros. Maybe pushing him was a bad idea; perhaps he should have slit his throat instead.
|
But what about Tyrion? He doesn't seem to value anything lately.
Wants to hurt/kill Cercei. Justice and oaths arent that high on list either.
|
On May 03 2013 02:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 07:12 ecstazy wrote:On May 02 2013 05:58 Dazed_Spy wrote:
Actually, pushing Bran really wasnt evil. I mean clearly it was an immoral action, but I think the evil of hurting a child is outweighed in this case by what it avoids. If Bran didnt die [or at least lost his memory] he would expose Jaimes incest. Which means his three children would be put to death, who are innocents in all this, and his sister and himself would be branded traitors. Thus sparking a civil war against the Lannisters, resulting, ultimately, in his death, his brothers death, his father and his sisters, nevermind the tens of thousands from combat and disease. I'd of pushed the fucker out the window too.
That's a bit far just for keeping him quiet, don't you think? I believe there is a scene in season 1 where cersei and jaime themselves agree that pushing him was a bad idea. At least Cersei definitely stated that she could have tried to reason with Bran instead. There both being sentimental idiots then. You cant convince an eight year old not to mention incest between two of the most famous individuals in westeros. Maybe pushing him was a bad idea; perhaps he should have slit his throat instead.
I think most people's objection is that they shouldn't have been engaging in incestuous sex in the first place...because what they were caught doing is considered reprehensible few people can forgive them for trying to hide it, no matter the cost.
The "happy ending" outcome of Bran climbing that tower is that he exposes them, they end up with their head on spikes, and Game of Thrones ends after one season. But we know that's not how GRRM works.
|
The question is, how many soldiers does the Lannisters have at their immediate disposal? Judging by the Battle of King's Landing, they probably had 5,000 tops with none of the subordinate houses coming to assist-- the rest were spread out over the Kingdom. They seem more than a little ill-prepared for an attack that could happen virtually at any point in time. 40-50K sounds good, but I'm doubtful they would make it to ground zero in time. Maybe I'm wrong, though, but Dany could wilt all of the Lannister's men in seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
