Heresy 134 The Faceless Men

[Black Crow]

Welcome to Heresy 134 the latest edition of the thread that takes a sideways look at the Song of Ice and Fire.

It’s Heresy because it questions popular assumptions that the Wall and the Nights Watch were created to keep the Others at bay - and that the story is going to end with Jon Snow being identified as Azor Ahai.

Instead, Heresy goes much deeper and is about trying to figure out what’s really going on, by looking at clues in the text itself with an open mind, and by identifying GRRM’s own sources and inspirations, ranging from Celtic and Norse mythology such as the Cu Chulainn cycle, the Morrigan and the Mabinogion, all the way through to Narnia and the original Land of Always Winter, and even perhaps ultimately to recognizing the Heart of Winter not as a place on a map but as Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, for in Westeros Winter and Darkness are one and the same.

Stepping into the world of Heresy might appear confusing. We range pretty widely and more or less in free-fall, in an effort to try and reach an understanding of what may really be happening through the resulting collision of ideas. we are in other words engaged in an exercise in chaos theory. It’s about making connections, sometimes real sometimes thematic, between east and west, between the various beliefs and types of magick - and also about reconciling the dodgy timelines. However, beyond the firm belief that things are not as they seem, there is no such thing as an accepted heretic view on Craster’s sons or any of the other topics discussed here, and the fiercest critics of some of the ideas discussed on these pages are our fellow heretics

If new to Heresy you may want to start off with this link: http://asoiaf.wester...138-heresy-100/ where you will find a series of essays specially commissioned to celebrate our century by looking closely at some of the major issues. Links are also provided at the end of each of the essays to the relevant discussion thread, and for those made of sterner stuff we also have a link to Wolfmaid's essential guide to Heresy: http://asoiaf.wester...uide-to-heresy/, which provides annotated links to all the previous editions of Heresy.

Those essays were a very successful project orchestrated by Mace Cooterian to celebrate the centennial edition, and by popular request we’re currently running a follow-up with five new topics for the five kings; thus far we have looked at Azor Ahai and prophecy; the Wildlings; the Weirwoods; and now Heresy 134 opens with Butterbumps’ essay on the Faceless Men.

The purpose of these special edition threads is to benefit from concentrating on the chosen topic in hand. If there is a new and startling revelation by GRRM which needs to be laid before us, fair enough, but otherwise please stick to the point and normal service will resume in due course.

Don’t be intimidated by the size and scope of Heresy, or by some of the ideas we’ve discussed over the years. We’re very good at talking in circles and we don’t mind going over old ground again, especially with a fresh pair of eyes, so just ask, but be patient and observe the local house rules that the debate be conducted by reference to the text, with respect for the ideas of others, and above all with great good humour.

[Black Crow]

(part 1 of 2)

The Faceless

Death is not the worst thing

I. philosophy

death: comfort, cessation, liberation

The Faceless understand life as a “vale of tears and pain,” while death is “an end to want and pain.” Life is not the blessing, but rather, death is “the Gift:”

“Death is not the worst thing,” the kindly man replied. “It is His gift to us, an end to want and pain.”

The ideas that life is full of suffering, and that salvation is achieved through death are familiar concepts in a number of religious traditions, in our world and in ASOIAF. However, where many of these religions see death as the wall behind which eternal life is granted to the righteous by a god who judges souls, the Faceless worship death itself, who does not judge man’s souls to separate the righteous from the wicked, nor does he reside over an afterlife in any conventional sense:

“On the day that we are born the Many-Faced God sends each of us a dark angel to walk through life beside us. When our sins and our sufferings grow too great to be borne, the angel takes us by the hand to lead us to the nightlands, where the stars burn ever bright. Those who come to drink from the black cup are looking for their angels. If they are afraid, the candles soothe them.”

In Abrahamic traditions, “angels of death” tend to connote figures of evil and destruction; when associated with “good,” these figures typically intercede after death has occurred, escorting the righteous. The Faceless’ dark angels stand in contrast to this, in that from the moment we’re born, death is always beside us, and good and evil are irrelevant. In fact, the Kindly Man’s aforementioned explanation is remarkably similar to Psalm 23 in how it appeals to a figure of comfort, here, the Abrahamic god (not an “angel of death”), leading one past want and fear toward the promise of something better in death:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

I think comparison to Psalm 23 helps frame the Faceless’ understanding of Death’s personification as a benevolent god that comforts, but it also reinforces some significant contrasts to the Faceless. The Abrahamic observer draws comfort not from death itself, but rather, the promise of permanence in a blessed afterlife, granted to him through his faith in the Abrahamic god. In this sense, it’s much closer to Aemon’s reflections on the Faith’s eschatology, which also posits that after death exists an eternal realm of feasts and plenty:

“The septons sing of sweet surcease, of laying down our burdens and voyaging to a far sweet land where we may laugh and love and feast until the end of days . . . but what if there is no land of light and honey, only cold and dark and pain beyond the wall called death?”

However, to the Faceless, death is the end-- a total cessation-- and it’s in embracing that cessation that Death becomes a figure of comfort and salvation. This is not about punishment and reward, or even an issue of faith, but rather, recognition that cessation from suffering is preferable to a life that’s synonymous with suffering. The desire for a state of permanence, such as an afterlife in which to enjoy the pleasures denied in life, so common to many religions in ASOIAF and our own world, is entirely beside the point here. The point is liberation through total ending—curtain’s closed, and there will be no encore.

This goal of complete cessation is where the Faceless diverge from those religions that promise eternal rewards and afterlife (Abrahamic religions, the Seven, the Drowned God, R’hllor), and become somewhat more analogous to Buddhism. In Buddhism, life, death, joy, pain, desire—everything—is understood as “suffering” (to be technical, “suffering” in this sense does not mean misery, but means something much closer to “the unending cycle of all that which is illusory and impermanent”). The goal in Buddhism is liberation from this “wheel of suffering,” achieved not through death (because reincarnation keeps you in this wheel), but through the realization of Nirvana, which is, very abridged, the cessation of desire for the impermanent, and extinction of illusion. At the risk of glossing over the complexity, it can be understood as liberation from the concept of “self,” and realization of no-“thing”-ness (nothingness).

Of course, the Faceless diverge from this philosophy on some critical points. Buddhists liberate themselves from “suffering,” the root of which largely stems from an illusion of self, through an intellectual process (realization). They believe there is no “self,” so there is no “self” to annihilate; one annihilates one’s illusion of “self.” By contrast, the Faceless seek liberation from suffering through death, and dedicate themselves to the annihilation of self through rigorous self-denial, becoming “no one” (so here, there is a “self” to liberate oneself from or annihilate).

The major alignment of these two religions is in the notion of liberation. The concept of liberation proliferates so thoroughly in all facets of the Faceless’ philosophy and politics that I’d posit this might actually be their “central tenet.” To some degree (and this is my personal critique, not their view), I think death is simply their vehicle for liberation to occur; they’ve “named” death as the entity to worship in its own right, but really, this is all about release, and death is the form it takes. Which brings us back to the beginning: of course, they would view death as the logical form for this in light of their view of life as a form of bondage within a “vale of tears and pain,” a perspective rooted in the endless suffering inflicted upon them as slaves in Valyria.

ethical implications

Death is like no other god; he doesn’t care about “righteous” or “wicked,” and emphatically, does not stand in judgment. All mortals, good and evil, have their dark angels:

“What are gods for if not to sit in judgment over men? The Many-Faced God does not weigh men’s souls, however. He gives his gift to the best of men as he gives it to the worst. Elsewise the good would live forever.”

This is logical in light of the Faceless’ lack of an afterlife, as without a promise of eternal reward or punishment, there’s no reason to determine who’s righteous or wicked. But this presents an ethical quandary: if there’s no divine judgment, because good and evil do not matter to death, then there is no ethical code to speak of, nor is there any incentive to be “good.”

This gets into something that may or may not be obvious. The Faceless don’t believe there is literally only one god, and that this god is death; rather, Death is the god the Faceless worship exclusively, though they do not question the existence of other gods. Nor is every single god one of Death’s faces; some religions name their “face” of death (for example, “the Stranger” in the Faith, “the Lion of Night” in Yi Ti, the “Black Goat” in Qohor), and these are the faces Death wears. This somewhat resolves the ethical quandary: only the Faceless subscribe to that system of non-judgment and apparent “non-ethics,” as they are the only group that worships death exclusively; they do have a “code,” but concepts of “sin” are absent. Everyone else worships other gods in addition to death, who presumably judge them, which means that there is in fact incentive to be “righteous” among the faithful outside of the Faceless, and the Faceless see no conflict in this.

if life is bondage and suffering, why not die now? or just give the Gift to everyone if it’s so great? or, better yet, work toward making life less dismal?

It seems that the Faceless see “suffering” as relative. That is, while life involves more suffering than death by virtue of the fact that death is the absence of suffering, death becomes the preferable option to seek only when life’s sufferings reach a critical intensity. It seems to be a question of burden: “When our sins and our sufferings grow too great to be borne, the angel takes us by the hand…”. Each life does not have the same intensity of burden, and therefore, the desire for release varies. Besides, as the KM tells Arya, Death will come to us all one day; though death is nothing to run from, it is not something to run toward unnecessarily either:

“at the end of every road stands Him of Many Faces, waiting. He will be there for you one day, do not fear. You need not rush to his embrace.”

The above explanation helps unpack the second question, and begins setting up the framework for the logic of the Faceless’ assassinations. As per the above, not everyone’s burden is too great to be borne, so rushing toward the gift is unnecessary; it will come one day regardless. But the quote above is more loaded, and deserves repeating: “When our sins and our sufferings grow too great…”. This isn’t merely referring to one’s personal desire for release from suffering, but refers to invoking someone else’s dark angel. That is, when someone’s “sinfulness” causes too much suffering to bear, you can seek his death.

Although seeking the Gift for oneself is unrestricted, there are rules for Gifting others. The Faceless may not give the Gift unless Death has marked the chosen, which occurs when one offers a great sacrifice that “pleases” Death:

“…one day, the first of us heard a slave praying not for his own death but for his master’s. So fervently did he desire this that he offered all he had, that his prayer might be answered. And it seemed to our first brother that this sacrifice would be pleasing to Him of Many Faces, so that night he granted the prayer. Then he went to the slave and said, ‘You offered all you had for this man’s death, but slaves have nothing but their lives. That is what the god desires of you. For the rest of your days on earth, you will serve him.’ And from that moment, we were two.”

This is essentially the inverse of MMD’s mantra that “only death can pay for life.” It’s saying, “only life can pay for death.” Whether one submits their life to the MFG directly by entering the Faceless, or by giving over nearly all they have through material offerings, the point is that asking for another’s death is no trifling matter. Only when someone’s desire for another’s death is so great that they are willing to sacrifice thusly does Death “mark” the chosen.

Why would Death want to restrict death so strictly? Well, death isn’t truly being restricted. As Death waits “at the end of every path,” everyone’s walking toward him anyway, so he gets his due whether they arrive sooner or later. And although this has not been articulated directly, it seems some sense of balance might be part of the logic as well; without any life at all, there can be no death, so total death (bringing the Gift to all at once) renders Death obsolete.

Which takes us to the third question I posed: if the Faceless recognize life as fairly miserable, but total death is not the “greatest good,” why not improve the suffering of life? This requires a bit of speculation in terms of whether this is their intention, but I’d argue that this might be exactly what they are doing in their own way. If someone has truly caused so much suffering that one is willing to make a very large sacrifice for his death, then the Faceless are indirectly restoring a kind of (perhaps karmic?) order. If we look at the incentive structure for hiring an assassin, one cannot be motivated by a hope to reap rewards from another’s death. The high, life-changing price really sets up a condition such that one is making a sacrifice in order to keep the source of the suffering from proliferating.

It’s something of a divined vigilante system. When the suffering one has caused becomes so great, the Faceless remove the individual causing so much suffering, thereby weeding out “sin” (as determined by the fact one has sacrificed wholly), at least in theory. However, although the incentive structure would seem to deter flippant requests for the Gift, theoretically reserving it for only those most worthy in terms of causing suffering, I don’t believe this is foolproof. There will always be individuals willing to “cut off their nose to spite their face,” and I don’t doubt “unworthy” targets have been killed for simple vengeance or vendetta. And I’m still unclear whether this sort of overall removal of the sources of suffering is something the Faceless directly intend as some welfare mission. Further, I’d posit that there are probably better ways of weeding out suffering than assassinations in most circumstances. Still, I think it’s fair to say that the presumed degree of suffering one has caused in being “marked” by another through sacrifice has some merit in weeding out “sin” and restoring some sense of order or balance.

balance

Faceless symbolism and policy supports the idea that a pursuit of balance is likely one of their guiding principles more generally, despite their apparent exclusive worship of Death, which would appear to be one-sided. Their adoption of black and white in equal parts, not to mention, the evocation of “yin yang” iconography of the ebony and wierwood face upon the temple door, suggests that they embrace opposite forces as complementary rather than in conflict. They may worship one side exclusively, but appear to recognize that both sides are mutually dependent, and appreciate multiplicity.

Policy-wise, the high price of death is something that seems to enforce balance, as does their total religious tolerance. The Faceless don’t seem to question the existence of other gods; they believe Death is the universal one, but don’t seem to believe it’s “more real” or more objectively dominant than any of the others. As such, this is not a religion to convert people to. On the contrary, the Faceless are incredibly separate from everyone else in their exclusive death worship, and that seems to be the point. Everyone should not be worshipping Death this way, as that would create imbalance. In other words, what validates the Faceless is precisely the fact that everyone outside of their sect perpetuates Death’s “opposites,” and this division is complementary.

In the same way I mentioned that the Faceless’ true devotion seems to be more about liberation than perhaps death itself, I think we might be seeing a similar application of a broader concept onto death here. They may worship death, but they really seem to be working toward the perpetuation of balance. In ASOIAF, this is a pretty unique position to take, in light of how the other religions (save the old gods), preach damnation to those without faith; there’s an imposed mutual exclusivity to them. The Faceless follow and serve one, but seem to understand that this one and the many are mutually dependent and absolutely not in conflict. I don’t think it’s merely some enlightened position of political liberalism compelling this tolerance, but recognition of a principle of balance and complement inseparable from their particular object of worship.

death’s “accountants”

I think there’s a salient comparison to the old gods here. If the old gods are balance, the Faceless represent the enforcers of balance. Death is the “hinge” that keeps everything in order. Without death, there can be no sustained life.

Which takes us to their mantra: All men must die. All men must serve. This is not a simple statement of self-evident fact that all men eventually die. It’s an imperative; they must die. In the universe of ASOIAF, the question of whether all men will die is rather ambiguous. Between life-extending magics, and outright reanimation, it does appear that immortality is sought after and apparently possible. That is, there really is an actual, tangible “metaphysical” imperative for the Faceless, as Death’s instruments, to act on.

If men refuse to bow to Death at the end of their paths, then balance is destroyed. I’m not sure if calling this refusal to bow a “sin” is entirely accurate, but I think that the idea of cheating death is the closest thing the Faceless would understand as “sinful,” in light of the imperative embedded in their words.

what is “no one?” and don’t the “Faceless” technically have many faces?

I’d alluded to this earlier in the Buddhism comparison, but to address it more directly, Death’s instruments are required to annihilate the “self” in order to serve him. Death does not judge or feel, so neither must his servants. Becoming Faceless is about stripping away one’s essence, from one’s name, to one’s own face, to personal loyalties, desires, fears, joys, and so forth:

“The price is you. The price is all you have and all you ever hope to have. We took your eyes and gave them back. Next we will take your ears, and you will walk in silence. You will give us your legs and crawl. You will be no one’s daughter, no one’s wife, no one’s mother. Your name will be a lie, and the very face you wear will not be your own.”

This is about destroying the sense of one’s separateness and unique identity, in order to serve something much more communal. The Faceless are not the only group to do this, I hasten to add; the Watch, the Citadel and KG are other examples where one’s essence is washed clean upon joining, at least symbolically. The Faceless, however, strive to remove “selfness” totally.

The cynical interpretation of this would be that depersonalizing the individual thusly will logically render him desensitized to killing and adept at disguise, and therefore, better able to carry out assassinations. I won’t deny there’s truth to that. But on the flip side, such depersonalization will render one less likely to give the Gift for compromised, unsanctioned reason, such as revenge, gain or personal pleasure. Thus, it cuts both ways in ensuring that order is not overturned:

“Death holds no sweetness in this house. We are not warriors, nor soldiers, nor swaggering bravos puffed up with pride. We do not kill to serve some lord, to fatten our purses, to stroke our vanity. We never give the gift to please ourselves. Nor do we choose the ones we kill. We are but servants of the God of Many Faces.”

[Black Crow]

(part 2 of 2)

II. applications and extensions

the many mysteries of Jaqen H’ghar

I advise caution in taking for granted that Jaqen’s behaviors are truly indicative of the Faceless generally. I’m not necessarily positing that he’s “gone rogue,” but rather advocating caution in trying to apply some of his behavior back onto the Faceless as principles, as some of it would seem to contradict what the KM tells Arya. More specifically, it’s difficult to identify whether “Jaqen,” “the alchemist” or “no one” is speaking at any given time, which clearly makes a difference to what may be counted as essentially Faceless.

Jaqen claims to be from Lorath, is very good-looking, genteel, and clean, with equal parts of red and white hair parted down the middle. He first appears as one of the 3 “most dangerous” prisoners Yoren was allowed to collect from the black cells, which would seem to imply that he’d committed a fairly significant crime off page. What he was doing in KL in the first place has been the subject of much speculation, but Martin gives us few-to-no clues about this. We know that he goes from the cells, to Yoren’s wagon, and remains in Harrenhal until Arya gives 3 him “names.” The “names” appear to be what’s binding him, which tells us that either he had no target by the time he arrived in the cells and was detained before his next assignment, or that his target had died by the time Arya freed him from the wagon. After weasel soup, he changes his face, and implies that he’s returning to back to Braavos, as he tells Arya that she can learn his magics if she comes with him across the sea when they part. Presumably, he returns to the HoBaW and gets a new assignment, which brings him to Oldtown as “the alchemist” in the FFC Prologue. After getting Pate, one of the novices, to commit theft, he gives him the Gift and assumes his face, thereby infiltrating the Citadel.

There are some curious pieces within that overview, however. It appears that “Jaqen” pays dues to the Red God, as this is the god he invokes after Arya frees the three men from the fire:

“The Red God has his due, sweet girl, and only death may pay for life. This girl took three that were his. This girl must give three in their places. Speak the names, and a man will do the rest.”

……..

“Three lives were snatched from a god. Three lives must be repaid. The gods are not mocked.”

Is this “no one” speaking, or has “no one” assumed the face of “Jaqen” so thoroughly that he’s “keeping character” by invoking “Jaqen’s” R’hllorist leanings? The notion that death must not be cheated of 3 lives would seem to be in line with the Faceless, but he blatantly invokes R’hllor here, both directly and in repeating MMD and Mel’s mantra that “only death may pay for life.” So is this a case of merely “keeping character,” or a case where “Jaqen” is letting his true beliefs spill through?

Of additional note, Jaqen seems to contradict the Faceless’ system of non-judgment when he calls Arya an “evil child” after she “names” him. And further, seems to contradict himself when he insists that she gives another name to prevent “Jaqen’s” death, but then goes on to willingly “die” immediately following the weasel soup incident:

“A man hears the whisper of sand in a glass. A man will not sleep until a girl unsays a certain name. Now, evil child.”

……….

“A god has his due. And now a man must die.” A strange smile touched the lips of Jaqen H’ghar.

If simply changing faces constitutes the death of “Jaqen,” then presumably, killing “Jaqen” could have been achieved without weasel soup. I don’t believe weasel soup was about paying that debt. I’m inclined to believe that when Jaqen changes his face, this is actually when the third death is granted. Between the fact that Roose had already arranged for the Northmen to infiltrate Harrenhal, so that taking it for the North was going to happen anyway, and what I suspect might be the development of warmth toward Arya on “Jaqen’s” part, I think this may have been a lesson for Arya, and not necessarily part of the 3-for-3.

In Oldtown, “the alchemist” bribes Pate to steal the black, heavy skeleton key Walgrave keeps under his bed. He knows that Pate desires a gold dragon in order to buy a prostitute’s virginity, and takes advantage of the common habit of biting a coin to kill Pate with poison in the same way Arya kills the insurance man in DwD.

He gives Pate 3 days to become a thief. When they meet again on the third day, the alchemist forces Pate to say that he’s a thief, after which they make the exchange. Now, from the parallel Arya chapter (Arya II, DwD), we know that a Faceless is not supposed to kill anyone other than the specified target. And we also know that the Faceless are not supposed to care about a target’s goodness or sin, as they do not judge.

Pate was obviously not the target (because who’d have hired a FM to kill him, and in the ludicrously unlikely event this occurred, the alchemist’s work would have been done). Which tells us that the alchemist may be operating beyond the Faceless’ rules to reach his true target. I am also a bit cautious in accepting that stealing the key was truly necessary or necessarily integral for his mission; if the alchemist is taking Pate’s identity and place as Walgrave’s steward, then he could have easily taken the key himself, once in place. I’d posit that the alchemist might be going off-script somewhat here. As I see it, it seems that the alchemist saw infiltrating the Citadel via Pate as the best chance to reach his target, but as Pate was not “marked,” he felt a need to justify killing him to achieve the larger end, and thus, why the request for the key became critical in order to render him a “sinner.”

The alchemist’s “larger end” is open to endless speculation. The idea that the alchemist might be looking for an ancient book, as Pate suspects, is a good guess. This may be part of the objective, however, I suspect there might be something even larger going on. By becoming Pate, the alchemist not only has access to Walgrave’s chambers, but to Marwyn. Which positions him very centrally in the Citadel’s division between those who respect magic, and those who are against it. Further, this gives him access to the glass candles, and whatever information association with Marwyn brings. That Marwyn seems so concerned with dragons (and accuses the maesters of causing their extinction) is another factor that elicits curiosity, in light of the Faceless’ origins.

As a final note, there are a few connections that strike me as potentially significant, though still too loose to really formulate anything concrete. In a few ways, it seems that the Faceless, the Ironborn and Citadel are converging. Rodrik Harlaw receives one of Marwyn’s books in FFC (The Book of Lost Books). It also appears that Euron hired the Faceless to kill Balon, and the general consensus is that he’d used his dragon egg as payment. Now there is a Faceless within the Citadel, positioned next to Marwyn and his glass candles. Oldtown seems to be on Euron’s agenda, and the ravenry tower, where Walgrave and Marwyn reside, was a “pirate lord’s” stronghold back in the Age of Heroes, according to Alleras. And according to Marwyn (via Leo Tyrell), “An age of wonder and terror will soon be upon us, an age for gods and heroes.”

But the most poignant connection might be in the entity of “the alchemist” itself. “The Alchemist” approaches Pate, telling him he can “change iron into gold,” which Pate keeps repeating: “Gold for iron. Gold for iron.” Of all the identities a man might choose, why settle on “the alchemist?” In what way does that lie make achieving his ends any easier? But what if it’s chosen because it’s really a “half-truth,” like a joke only the alchemist is in on? Is it a hint about who his target might be? Might his target be one of the Ironborn?

wearing skin, skinchanging, changing “leather hoods,” inhabiting corpses: all on the same spectrum?

The ability to skinchange seems to be an inherited trait among the First Men. Slipping into an animal’s skin like this appears to be a symbiotic form of magic, such that neither man nor animal are harmed or subjugated by the arrangement, at least theoretically. In practice, we see an abuse of “Haggon’s Rules” by both Bran and Varamyr. The former violates the “rules” of skinchanging by inhabiting another human, essentially subjugating Hodor. Varamyr violates the “rules” no shortage of ways, but for our purposes, the abuse I find most salient is the way he subjugates the animals he wears, essentially enslaving them.

We also see the Boltons “wearing skins.” They have a time-honored tradition of flaying men (notably, the Starks) and wearing the skins. The rationale behind this behavior is unknown, and open to speculation. It could be a form of envy of the Starks, suggesting a lack magical ability on their own part. It could be a form of mockery, a simple non-magical defiance of their overlords. Or, potentially, a mockery based in flaunting their own “superior” brand of magic, which might allow them to “skinchange” corpses as their thralls instead of symbiotic living hosts. Or, potentially, the Bolton practice might invoke a similar type of magic the Faceless do, such that they more literally “become” the dead (as opposed to controlling the dead as a separate entity). Whatever the Boltons hope to achieve in wearing human skins remains a mystery.

Which brings us to “the ugly little girl.” To prepare for her first assignment, Arya is brought down to a room with multiple “leather hoods” arranged on the walls; they are the faces of those who have died at the HoBaW, ostensibly flayed from the corpses to serve as masks. The KM slices Arya’s face, and she drinks a tart, lemon-like beverage in anticipation of the masking. Face-wearing seems to be a form of “blood magic” (though, in fairness, what isn’t?) in that it appears giving blood to the leather hood enables the magic. As such, this is more than a disguise; it’s a transformation. Through the face, Arya becomes the “ugly girl,” with all the girl’s memories and emotion coursing through her:

Then came a tug and a soft rustling as the new face was pulled down over the old. The leather scraped across her brow, dry and stiff, but as her blood soaked into it, it softened and turned supple. Her cheeks grew warm, flushed. She could feel her heart fluttering beneath her breast, and for one long moment she could not catch her breath. Hands closed around her throat, hard as stone, choking her. Her own hands shot up to claw at the arms of her attacker, but there was no one there. A terrible sense of fear filled her, and she heard a noise, a hideous crunching noise, accompanied by blinding pain. A face floated in front of her, fat, bearded, brutal, his mouth twisted with rage. She heard the priest say, “Breathe, child. Breathe out the fear. Shake off the shadows. He is dead. She is dead. Her pain is gone. Breathe.”

This describes something nearly opposite of skinchanging, in that it is not someone’s occupying a separate, living host, but rather, a living host’s being occupied by the dead, via the living’s wearing the dead’s skin. And it’s not akin to inhabiting corpses in the sense of making the dead one’s thrall. Rather, in an odd way, it seems to be a balanced, symbiotic relationship between the living and dead the Faceless developed.

As a side note, we see Jaqen change his face into the alchemist’s without this ritual, but only a movement of his hand. Absent of seeing how one learns to change their face without the ritual, my speculation is this: these “leather hoods” might never be removed, such that the Faceless essentially build a collection of faces over time, stored on their face, able to switch between any within the collection. Again, this is entirely my speculation, but I think this helps explain how Jaqen transformed with a swipe of his hand, and in a more thematic sense, would multiply the thoroughness of truly having “no face.”

So there appears to be some significant links between skinchanging, Bolton flayings, the Faceless, and, potentially, the Others, if one believes that they are performing a type of “skin-wearing” in raising the wights as their thralls. I’d like to posit that these might fall onto a spectrum. And would also posit that whether the host is living or dead, and the degree to which the host is “enslaved” or subjugated by the wearer, might be the salient variables that determine where each form falls.

slavery and death

The Braavosi’s feelings toward slavery deserve some attention. We’ve already addressed the importance of liberation and “natural balance” in the Faceless philosophy, and know that their organization emerged as a reaction to the suffering caused by the Valyrian slavers. In fact, the KM even claims that the Faceless eventually brought the Doom to these overlords. Even their form of “skinchanging” seems to eliminate issues of subjugation of one by another.

I’d like to posit that cheating death (pursuing immortality) and imposing slavery (whether in the form of Valyria or Slaver’s Bay, or in perversions of “skinchanging”), might be the two most egregious violations of natural order we see in the ASOIAF, and the same two violations it appears the Faceless stand against. Often, magic seems to be used to achieve immortality in some form or another, as well as a tool of oppression. I think that it might be fair to say that this is really what all magic—specifically, when wielded by men—comes down to: immortality and subjugation. So, essentially, the Faceless use the very same mechanism (magic) that enable these violations in order to combat these violations. But I’d also posit that perhaps their strong denial of self—becoming “no one”—is intended to be a safeguard against committing the same abuses that occur when magic falls into “one’s” hand.

[LynnS]

That was pure genius Butterbumps. There is always more to it than what is seen on or off the page. There are too many holes on the page to know for sure. I like the comparison of Boltons to skinchangers of a sort; but skinflaying puts me more in mind of Qyburn and Marwyn opening bodies; especially Qyburn's fondness for aquiring girls not unlike Ramsey's 'hunt'. I suspect there is a connection there as well and that the original Reek is one of Qyburn's creatures. Pate's target is intriguing, but I still have no idea who that might be. Also puzzling is J'Aqen's red and white hair. Is it just that his association to R'hllor bleeds through or does it relate in any way to the Wierwood's white and red? I associate red and white with fire and ice.

Your commentary is always intriuging and deep. I'll take my leave of you now.

[Hrafntýr]

Wow, Butterbumps!, what a great essay! I really appreciate your exploration of the philosophy of the Faceless, and especially appreciated your close examination of the figure of Jaqen H'ghar, who I've never seen treated with such depth of analysis. While I think I'll need some time to mull over the big picture, a couple of initial responses to some specific points in your post.

1. I think the comparison to Buddhism is an important one, and the Faceless practice of "becoming no one" is just as complex as Buddhist theories and practices of self/no-self, according to which the view "there is a self" and "there is no self" are equally problematic. For me, following the progress of Arya's training suggests that the Faceless are not, in fact, about absolute annihilation of the self, but rather skillful recognition of in what situations a self arises, and in what situations we perceive that there is, in fact, no self, but only actions working through "us." I feel quite strongly that Arya has actually been "rewarded" by being moved on to the next level of training when she has broken the apparent rule that she should become no one. After all (and here I'm really thinking with Buddhist philosophy), the statement "I am no one" just as surely asserts a self as does "I am Arya of House Stark" and "I am not Arya of House Stark," and I wonder if the training of the Faceless is actually about skillfully negotiating all the forms of self that arise, noticing which arise in which situations, and which are most "useful." I tend to think that the inner circle of the Faceless are comprised of those who can be both no one and someone.

2. "Gold for iron" and "accountants": "The Iron Bank is always glad to be of service."(Tycho Nestoris)

I'm not the first to think that there's a deep relationship, if not identity, between the Faceless and the Iron Bank. The first thing that I think of when I think of the Alchemist disguise and "gold for iron" is the emblematic iron coin of the Faceless and the gold of the Iron Bank. I like the way that you figure the ethics of the Faceless as something like a karmic account-keeping, which again puts them in parallel to the more straightforward accountants of the Iron Bank. Are the Faceless simply the "muscle" that backs up the collection practices of the Iron Bank, or does the Iron Bank enable the Faceless to do something they otherwise could not?

But I love the way you bring in the Ironborn! Pertinent here is their deeply engrained distinction between the "iron price" and the "gold price," the first being associated with the absolute willingness to lay your life on the line, to give yourself over to death, which definitely fits with the symbolism of the iron coin of the Faceless and their philosophy: basically, one must pay the "iron price" in order to get the Gift.

More later!

ETA: One quick note on the "mechanics" of Jaqen H'ghar's quick face change. Are you familiar with the Chinese art of Bian Lian? It's part of the operatic tradition, and though it involves sewn silk "faces" rather than actual human faces (!), the practitioners are so skilled that it is near impossible to see the changes from one "face" to another, even slowing your film way down. I've seen it in practice, it is totally astonishing.

[addicted to snow]

That was pure genius Butterbumps. There is always more to it than what is seen on or off the page. There are too many holes on the page to know for sure. I like the comparison of Boltons to skinchangers of a sort; but skinflaying puts me more in mind of Qyburn and Marwyn opening bodies; especially Qyburn's fondness for aquiring girls not unlike Ramsey's 'hunt'. I suspect there is a connection there as well and that the original Reek is one of Qyburn's creatures. Pate's target is intriguing, but I still have no idea who that might be. Also puzzling is J'Aqen's red and white hair. Is it just that his association to R'hllor bleeds through or does it relate in any way to the Wierwood's white and red? I associate red and white with fire and ice.

Your commentary is always intriuging and deep. I'll take my leave of you now.

I have always interpreted that Red/White hair as being chosen for the purpose of giving Jaqen a very striking, memorable appearance… This way we could crouch behind a rock if needs be, change his face & hair, and stand back up as someone totally different & there would be no doubt in anyone's mind that this was NOT Jaqen… It seems to me that all his appearances are rather striking in some way...

[Mithras]

Incredible essays butterbumps.

I agree with your analysis that the FM are not one-sided death worshipers. They appreciate the life as well, which makes them different from Benerro-like endless summer seekers or the Others-like endless winter seekers.

All men must die is the natural order. The KM said that no folk lives to the eternity; hence Him of Many Faces rules all. It is easy to interpret this but what about all men must serve?

Men must embrace the gift when the time is right. This is how men must serve the natural order. Dying is equated to letting go the ambitions of life and leaving the world to the others. This is an altruistic philosophy.

Spoiler from The Legend of Korra:

In the third season, we see an incredible quote from an ancient airbender, Guru Laghima, who was the only person to unlock the mystery of flight:

Let go your earthly tether. Enter the void, empty, and become wind.

When the lover of the antagonist dies, he lets go with his last earthly tether and starts flying. By achieving this new spiritual level, his airbending powers multiply. BTW, the airbending nation is almost completely based on Buddhism

The corpse of the dying should feed the living. That is a recurring theme in the series. Varamyr was thinking of eating his own flesh in his second life. The first and third head of Trios represent this cycle too. Eating flesh in general has a metaphoric meaning of taking monarchy, rulership from a person.

This kind of altruistic philosophy in self-sacrifice for the living can be counted as blood sacrifice to work powerful magic. Perhaps that is how the Doom was made. All the slaves in Valyria willingly sacrificed their lives and the first FM used that great sacrifice to work that great magic. Perhaps the Hammers of Waters were crated the same way.

[wolfmaid7]

Bumps I love love love this essay ! I love your revelations behind "the death angel" and the heading on balance superb.I will write more later on this but excellent essay.

[Black Crow]

Jaqen H'gar introduces a number of complications which bear further thought, but as to his references to the Red God I wonder if we are over-complicating things and confusing philosophy with religion.

The Faceless Men it would appear are not fussy about where they obtain their recruits and instead like contemporary cults will attract people susceptible to what they offer and then break them down as individuals in order to re-mould them as faithful and often uncritical members of the community, as seen by the recruitment and training of Arya and the "who are you?" business. Yet just as Arya retains some of herself, Jaqen's references to the Red God may reflect his origins rather than his present allegiances.

[Melifeather]

Brilliant analysis, and you write so beautifully too. Perfect topic for your talents.

I see no conflict between Jaqen's invocation of the "red god" and He of Many Faces. R'hllor is just one face of the many Faced God, at least the death aspect, and so Rh'llor is also He of Many Faces.

I don't follow you in regards in speculating that Jaqen failed in his Kings Landing target, or that the target didn't die until Arya provided the way out of that burning trailer. Jaqen and Co were going to burn to death, and since death by fire is R'hllor's territory, 3 lives were owed to him/she/it. The part I found contrary were the 3 deaths should have also been by fire.

As for Pate's death. It does seem that Jaqen wanted to be sure he was deserving of the Gift, but it does appear that Jaqen made the decision on his own unless that was part of the "hire"?

I love the possibilities that you've opened the door to in regards to the Bolton's. What they do with flaying may be linked to what the Kindly Man has shown Arya. I would love to know if Roose is able to practice the same type of transformation!

Congratulations on a job well done and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread moved very quickly.

[Syri0_F0rel]

ETA: One quick note on the "mechanics" of Jaqen H'ghar's quick face change. Are you familiar with the Chinese art of Bian Lian? It's part of the operatic tradition, and though it involves sewn silk "faces" rather than actual human faces (!), the practitioners are so skilled that it is near impossible to see the changes from one "face" to another, even slowing your film way down. I've seen it in practice, it is totally astonishing.

Thank you, I had not heard of Bian Lian and I enjoyed looking it up.

[Arya Havinfun]

Butterbumps!, you are terrific! Thanx for putting this together for us! Please pardon my awkwardness with multiple quotations.

*****************************

BB!: ...if the Faceless recognize life as fairly miserable, but total death is not the “greatest good,” why not improve the suffering of life? This requires a bit of speculation in terms of whether this is their intention, but I’d argue that this might be exactly what they are doing in their own way. If someone has truly caused so much suffering that one is willing to make a very large sacrifice for his death, then the Faceless are indirectly restoring a kind of (perhaps karmic?) order. If we look at the incentive structure for hiring an assassin, one cannot be motivated by a hope to reap rewards from another’s death. The high, life-changing price really sets up a condition such that one is making a sacrifice in order to keep the source of the suffering from proliferating.

AH: This explains the ruinously extortionate sliding fee scale used for assassination assignments. The rich have to sacrifice proportionately to the poor when hiring a FM hit. It also adds a 3rd reason why I don't go along with the popular theory that Euron Greyjoy hired a FM to kill his brother Balon. Allegedly parting with a dragon egg in no way counts as a hardship for Euron, as he still has most of his wealth and power intact.

*****************************************

All men must die. All men must serve. This is not a simple statement of self-evident fact that all men eventually die. It’s an imperative; they must die. In the universe of ASOIAF, the question of whether all men will die is rather ambiguous. Between life-extending magics, and outright reanimation, it does appear that immortality is sought after and apparently possible. That is, there really is an actual, tangible “metaphysical” imperative for the Faceless, as Death’s instruments, to act on.

If men refuse to bow to Death at the end of their paths, then balance is destroyed. I’m not sure if calling this refusal to bow a “sin” is entirely accurate, but I think that the idea of cheating death is the closest thing the Faceless would understand as “sinful,” in light of the imperative embedded in their words.

Which brings up the question why don't the FM go after those who do use magical means to extend their lives beyond all reason. Folks like the Undying, for example, who are quite well known to practice illicit life lengthening magic? Or maybe the 13LC at the Heart of Winter, with the way they enslave babies, and even corpses? I understand the FM may have relatively few operatives available so they may not be up to large scale "interventions", but surely they have a "to do list"?

I'm not sure that the greenseers wed to the trees would be likely targets, as they might ultimately be viewed as fellow balancers at a different level of magic.

******************************************

As a final note, there are a few connections that strike me as potentially significant, though still too loose to really formulate anything concrete. In a few ways, it seems that the Faceless, the Ironborn and Citadel are converging. Rodrik Harlaw receives one of Marwyn’s books in FFC (The Book of Lost Books). It also appears that Euron hired the Faceless to kill Balon, and the general consensus is that he’d used his dragon egg as payment. Now there is a Faceless within the Citadel, positioned next to Marwyn and his glass candles. Oldtown seems to be on Euron’s agenda, and the ravenry tower, where Walgrave and Marwyn reside, was a “pirate lord’s” stronghold back in the Age of Heroes, according to Alleras. And according to Marwyn (via Leo Tyrell), “An age of wonder and terror will soon be upon us, an age for gods and heroes.”

Now this is interesting! I hadn’t correlated these details before. Given that I don’t think Euron hired a FM to kill Balon, it may be possible that the FM might have hired/tricked Euron to assist with their own plans to infiltrate the Citadel. What bigger security distraction can there be than a threatened assault by a notorious pirate?

*********************************************

But the most poignant connection might be in the entity of “the alchemist” itself. “The Alchemist” approaches Pate, telling him he can “change iron into gold,” which Pate keeps repeating: “Gold for iron. Gold for iron.” Of all the identities a man might choose, why settle on “the alchemist?” In what way does that lie make achieving his ends any easier? But what if it’s chosen because it’s really a “half-truth,” like a joke only the alchemist is in on? Is it a hint about who his target might be? Might his target be one of the Ironborn?

Very possibly a target, but I suspect he’s more of an ally/contractor, at least temporarily, creating a diversion from whatever the alchemist is working on. Euron is the big bad, with magical powers from Asshai and elsewhere, and there’s some hint he may have been scouted in his youth by the 3 Eyed Crow as a possible greenseer. Even the sigil on his pirate flag implies as much. The Iron Bank, the Ironborn, and the FM. A heady mix, that, full of corrupt possibilities.

I love the possibilities that you've opened the door to in regards to the Bolton's. What they do with flaying may be linked to what the Kindly Man has shown Arya. I would love to know if Roose is able to practice the same type of transformation!

Congratulations on a job well done and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread moved very quickly.

Gods be good! Do you think that Roose has escaped detection as an independent Undying all these years [decades?/centuries?/millennia?] by pretending to die and taking on the faces of his sons when they are old enough to inherit?

ETA: Do you think the Kindly Man, the Waif, and other FM operatives are themselves accustomed to life extension as part of their service to the HoB&W?

[The Undead Martyr]

This is a set of ideas and notions floating around in my head, namely after studying eastern religions in college and reflecting on the ethos of the Faceless Men.

I feel that a lot of people are dismissing the Faceless Men as “mere assassins” or misconstruing them within the context of the dualsit worldview- that is, placing them on the side of “evil” or even worse, the Others. I think that these notions run counter to the worldview of both the FM and the Old Gods, which to my mind fall much more along the lines of “Eastern” religions.

If I had to pick a word describing the Faceless mores, I would say that they are concerned with the concept of destiny, concomitant to the RL concepts Dharma, or perhaps Yin-Yang. Eastern religions, unlike western Monotheisms, lack a Manichean fetish for sorting things into good or evil or assigning a teleological value. Light and dark in the west signify a moral dualism, categories of good and evil; eastern religions, rather than assigning a uni-directional moral code, emphasize what could be considered “the Natural Order” This is similar to pre-Christian classical values- for instance, the ancient Greeks would say a soldier is “good” because he is a good soldier- he is good at what he does and knows his place in the natural order. This idea is strongly reminiscent of the Hindu caste system or the Confucian ethics, which emphasize finding one’s role in life (as a warrior, priest, etc.) and fulfilling it to the best of one’s ability; a bad fighter, if he is of the Kshatriya caste, is better than a merchant who takes up the sword and is good at fighting.

Something that struck me is that the phrase “Valar Morghulis” is more commonly associated with the FM than the addendum, “valar Dohaeris” or all men must serve. IIRC, from AFFC, the Kindly Man says, “Valar Morghulis is what they said in Valyria, but Valar Dohaeris is what we say here.” It’s possible that this and much else is part of the inculcation process for acolytes but I feel that it remains a strong cornerstone of their belief system. This second phrase stuck with me as hinting at the FM code and being relatively unexplored. I would say the FM are very like the Jedi- their “loss of self” is a very Buddhist sublimation of the self, that is the recognition of the illusory nature of one’s desires and very identity, as well as a detachment from such desires. They would point to Anakin’s fall as a classic example of fighting fate and attempting to impose one’s selfish whims upon an indifferent natural order- this same criticism is leveled against Arya, when she suggests killing the loan shark’s guards- that they have not been chosen. This to me implies both a practical concern- teaching her to minimized the body count, think creatively, and choose a more subtle method- and also a consideration that it is not their place to end men’s lives. Good and evil, all men must die- but as mere agents of the God’s Will they cannot choose to end a life unless it is in accordance with the design of the heavens/etc. All men must serve- all men must know their place, their fate, their purpose. The time and manner of a man’s death is a major part of his destiny. Furthermore all men must serve- but what? All men have duties, responsibilities, etc. which they must fulfill.

My theory is this- that the Faceless men choose a new face and name for every kill- that they assume a persona, are “born” as an alias, for the sole destiny of killing the target and/or completing the mission. Arya’s execution of Daario was not punished because Arya Stark of Winterfell was a “face” destined to kill a deserter, at least according to her warped and half-baked child’s-version of the concept of duty. Arya does not understand that as a lady she would not be expected to execute a deserter. She does not understand why deserters must be executed. She does not consider that they might need a trial. All she understands is that Dareon is a deserter- a man who upsets the Natural Order by openly rejecting his duty as a man of the Night’s Watch, arguably the worst sin any man could commit under the Faceless Man/Eastern mindset (I would argue that the Old Gods and/or Starks also have a similar ethos)- and that as a Stark it was her duty to correct the imbalance by killing him. This coincided with the Faceless Man’s beliefs that she, as a persona with a duty to killing deserters, was acting in accordance with the Many Faced God’s whims. She served the god and so was “rewarded” with a progression in training.

I also wonder as to why people think Jaquen has gone rogue. The common argument seems to be that he ignored the precepts that Arya were told- namely about not choosing who to kill. The common response to that argument is that as an acolyte she is given the “kiddie version” while a presumably well-ranking and experienced master on long-term assignment is given considerable independence by default. While undoubtedly true I also feel that it assumes that there is indeed a contradiction between what Arya is told and what Jaquen does. What was Jaquen doing? There are four-and-a-half theories, which I will discuss.

First, the thought goes, he was assigned to go to the Wall. I do believe that the FM will view the Others as an abomination, and will be keeping an eye on the Wall. However they would not need to go to such lengths as imprisoning one of their own do do that- send a man to Eastwatch disguised as a northerner and have him there as long term cover.

A second thought is that he was sent to assassinate someone, perhaps Aemon. Just as with the wall scenario this can be dismissed on the grounds of being overly elaborate- why not just send a man to the Wall directly or even to White harbor onward?

My personal theory is that he was initially hired by Varys to take care of (or “take care of”) Lord Stark. This assignment got Joffreyed, yet he did not desert or move on. Why? Because, Jaqen Hghar, a name and a Face chosen for a specific task. That task was bust, but in accordance with the FM ideals he still had a task to perform- “The God sent him here”, and even if the details were not entirely accurate he still had a Moral Imperative to fulfill his duty as Jaquen Hgar before he could assume a new mantle and a new mission. This mantle, to me, turned out to be Arya Stark.

Jaquen’s actions with respect to the “debt” stand as a stark demonstration that the FM do indeed take their religious code VERY SERIOUSLY. Whether or not he intended to recruit her immediately, he had a debt to fulfill- that is, Jaquen’s destiny was to balance the ledgers, repay the three lives saved with three lives owed. I don’t think even he was entirely sure about what he was doing nor do I think he cared- his thoughts were presumably quite Jedi-like/mystical, and tracking down Arya seemed to be the sole extent of what he intended to do- and like a proper Jedi servant of the MFG he would obediently follow the will of the Force the whims of the God even if he didn’t know where it would lead. Arya’s blackmail is actually sort of stupid UNLESS the FM take their religion so seriously that a 3 deaths for three lives oath includes offing themselves. In other words they are serious enough to kill themselves if that is what their god/duty/oath/mission demands. This is as far removed from the cynical assassins with Death-Cult pseudo-mysticism as you can possibly get.

No sooner did he complete his task/duty than he changes his face and departs, presumably for the Citadel. Jaquen Hgar is as dead as Arry. He served his purpose. A new face and a new name meant a new destiny, a new mission for him.

[Black Crow]

... Do you think the Kindly Man, the Waif, and other FM operatives are themselves accustomed to life extension as part of their service to the HoB&W?

Possibly, but if they can't laugh, dance and sing it would be more of a curse than a blessing.

[butterbumps!]

Hey guys! Thank you all so much for the kind words about this! As it looks like some of you might have suspected, the Faceless is probably my favorite ASOIAF religion, so I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity to write about this.

That was pure genius Butterbumps. There is always more to it than what is seen on or off the page. There are too many holes on the page to know for sure. I like the comparison of Boltons to skinchangers of a sort; but skinflaying puts me more in mind of Qyburn and Marwyn opening bodies; especially Qyburn's fondness for aquiring girls not unlike Ramsey's 'hunt'. I suspect there is a connection there as well and that the original Reek is one of Qyburn's creatures. Pate's target is intriguing, but I still have no idea who that might be. Also puzzling is J'Aqen's red and white hair. Is it just that his association to R'hllor bleeds through or does it relate in any way to the Wierwood's white and red? I associate red and white with fire and ice.

Your commentary is always intriuging and deep. I'll take my leave of you now.

Thanks. I'm glad you bring up other cases of necromancy, like Qyburn. Instinctively, I want to say that the Faceless would disapprove of Qyburn's practices, as it involves reanimation of discrete bodies, but it's a good comparison to face changing. On Reek though, (birth name Heke, according to Rams), I actually got the impression that he might have been another of Roose's bastard sons. The fact that he has access to Lady Bolton's bedchamber, and stole perfume from it twice without being killed, makes me think he might be of Roose's blood. I'm curious if he may have had the ice eyes.

Wow, Butterbumps!, what a great essay! I really appreciate your exploration of the philosophy of the Faceless, and especially appreciated your close examination of the figure of Jaqen H'ghar, who I've never seen treated with such depth of analysis. While I think I'll need some time to mull over the big picture, a couple of initial responses to some specific points in your post.

1. I think the comparison to Buddhism is an important one, and the Faceless practice of "becoming no one" is just as complex as Buddhist theories and practices of self/no-self, according to which the view "there is a self" and "there is no self" are equally problematic. For me, following the progress of Arya's training suggests that the Faceless are not, in fact, about absolute annihilation of the self, but rather skillful recognition of in what situations a self arises, and in what situations we perceive that there is, in fact, no self, but only actions working through "us." I feel quite strongly that Arya has actually been "rewarded" by being moved on to the next level of training when she has broken the apparent rule that she should become no one. After all (and here I'm really thinking with Buddhist philosophy), the statement "I am no one" just as surely asserts a self as does "I am Arya of House Stark" and "I am not Arya of House Stark," and I wonder if the training of the Faceless is actually about skillfully negotiating all the forms of self that arise, noticing which arise in which situations, and which are most "useful." I tend to think that the inner circle of the Faceless are comprised of those who can be both no one and someone.

2. "Gold for iron" and "accountants": "The Iron Bank is always glad to be of service."(Tycho Nestoris)

I'm not the first to think that there's a deep relationship, if not identity, between the Faceless and the Iron Bank. The first thing that I think of when I think of the Alchemist disguise and "gold for iron" is the emblematic iron coin of the Faceless and the gold of the Iron Bank. I like the way that you figure the ethics of the Faceless as something like a karmic account-keeping, which again puts them in parallel to the more straightforward accountants of the Iron Bank. Are the Faceless simply the "muscle" that backs up the collection practices of the Iron Bank, or does the Iron Bank enable the Faceless to do something they otherwise could not?

But I love the way you bring in the Ironborn! Pertinent here is their deeply engrained distinction between the "iron price" and the "gold price," the first being associated with the absolute willingness to lay your life on the line, to give yourself over to death, which definitely fits with the symbolism of the iron coin of the Faceless and their philosophy: basically, one must pay the "iron price" in order to get the Gift.

More later!

ETA: One quick note on the "mechanics" of Jaqen H'ghar's quick face change. Are you familiar with the Chinese art of Bian Lian? It's part of the operatic tradition, and though it involves sewn silk "faces" rather than actual human faces (!), the practitioners are so skilled that it is near impossible to see the changes from one "face" to another, even slowing your film way down. I've seen it in practice, it is totally astonishing.

Thank you! That's actually a really interesting point-- that the Faceless may not be about complete self-annihilation, but rather about recognizing and controlling when self arises. As a related point, I wonder what the KM and the Waif smell when the red candles are lit. Does it change according to which "self" they are projecting, do they smell what was comforting to their original self, or do they smell nothing?

I cautiously agree that Arya was being "rewarded" with blindness, or at least accelerating her training. It's a standard part of the training process (other acolytes are noted to be undergoing this training as well), so it's not a "punishment." As I understood it, I think that Arya showed the KM that she was capable of killing in cold blood, but did so for reasons that stem from her attachment to "Arya Stark." I suspect that her ability to kill like this meant that she was a promising Faceless candidate, but that her rationale meant she had much work to do in taming or extinguishing "Arya Stark." I think the KM wanted her to undergo a more extreme training exercise to jolt her into creating a division between "no one" and "Arya."

And about the alchemist. I mean, on one level it might just be his sense of humor-- he promises Pate a gold dragon for the (presumably) iron key he wants ("gold for iron", i.e. "the alchemist"). I'm really curious what the thoughts might be about how these facets might be converging though, and I agree that the name evokes the Iron Bank as well. I have no idea what the relationship between the IB and the Faceless are, but that's another interesting angle-- is "the alchemist" contracted by the Iron Bank?

Oh, and thanks for bringing up the Bain Lain masks. I'm not super familiar with the mechanics of how it's done (it seems to be a guarded secret), but this strikes me as a highly apropos comparison.

Incredible essays butterbumps.

I agree with your analysis that the FM are not one-sided death worshipers. They appreciate the life as well, which makes them different from Benerro-like endless summer seekers or the Others-like endless winter seekers.

All men must die is the natural order. The KM said that no folk lives to the eternity; hence Him of Many Faces rules all. It is easy to interpret this but what about all men must serve?

Men must embrace the gift when the time is right. This is how men must serve the natural order. Dying is equated to letting go the ambitions of life and leaving the world to the others. This is an altruistic philosophy.

Spoiler from The Legend of Korra:

In the third season, we see an incredible quote from an ancient airbender, Guru Laghima, who was the only person to unlock the mystery of flight:

Let go your earthly tether. Enter the void, empty, and become wind.

When the lover of the antagonist dies, he lets go with his last earthly tether and starts flying. By achieving this new spiritual level, his airbending powers multiply. BTW, the airbending nation is almost completely based on Buddhism

The corpse of the dying should feed the living. That is a recurring theme in the series. Varamyr was thinking of eating his own flesh in his second life. The first and third head of Trios represent this cycle too. Eating flesh in general has a metaphoric meaning of taking monarchy, rulership from a person.

This kind of altruistic philosophy in self-sacrifice for the living can be counted as blood sacrifice to work powerful magic. Perhaps that is how the Doom was made. All the slaves in Valyria willingly sacrificed their lives and the first FM used that great sacrifice to work that great magic. Perhaps the Hammers of Waters were crated the same way.

Thanks PW.

I'm glad you brought up questions about "All men must serve." "Serve" has a number of meanings that I think may apply to this, including, but not limited to:

work for [death]

work through a term of imprisonment ["serve" a sentence, as in a jail]

to worship and respect

to assist a celebrant at mass

I think on one level, it simply means that "all men must bow to death in the end," in the sense that they must recognize death as a "master." I wonder, though, if there's a more pragmatic meaning. We've seen a number of people in Braavos, not part of the Faceless themselves, working with the Faceless industry. The captain of the Titan's Daughter that brought Arya to Braavos, to Brusco, to Izembaro seem to be part of a network of giving service to the Faceless. I've wondered if there might be an implicit "rule" in Braavos such that all citizens may be called on one day to perform a service in support of the Faceless/ death.

And actually, about the Doom, I've had a similar thought. Killing oneself can actually be a major form of defiance or rebellion in this context. It's taking back control of one's own life that another is trying to own. One liberates themselves from both earthly, literal bondage and suffering, while thwarting the slavers. If the Faceless did truly bring the Doom, this was my thought on how it might have been done as well.

[Arya Havinfun]

Possibly, but if they can't laugh, dance and sing it would be more of a curse than a blessing.

The HoB&W itself seems pretty ascetic, but field assignments involve a lot of mummery and a chance to goof around with all sorts. I'd say there's plenty of opportunity for laughter,dance, and song.

[redrose]

In relation to your excellent essay Butterbumps it makes me wonder how the FM view Melisandre, Roose ( allegedly ) , the undying the others etc. how do they react if death is cheated? The others in certain quarters have been known as the neverborn, in order to die you have to have been born and yet if you are never born will you never die? A whole jumble of thoughts at the moment.....back later

[Armstark]

I cautiously agree that Arya was being "rewarded" with blindness, or at least accelerating her training. It's a standard part of the training process (other acolytes are noted to be undergoing this training as well), so it's not a "punishment." As I understood it, I think that Arya showed the KM that she was capable of killing in cold blood, but did so for reasons that stem from her attachment to "Arya Stark." I suspect that her ability to kill like this meant that she was a promising Faceless candidate, but that her rationale meant she had much work to do in taming or extinguishing "Arya Stark." I think the KM wanted her to undergo a more extreme training exercise to jolt her into creating a division between "no one" and "Arya."

I wonder how standard Arya's training is really conducted. The fact remains that she is not no one like most acolytes but someone with identy (high birth, Stark) and someone with a unique skill (warging). Time is of the essence and it might be that the kindly man is turning a blind eye (pun intended) to some of her shortcomings and cut some corners in her training.

[addicted to snow]

There are some curious pieces within that overview, however. It appears that “Jaqen” pays dues to the Red God, as this is the god he invokes after Arya frees the three men from the fire:

“The Red God has his due, sweet girl, and only death may pay for life. This girl took three that were his. This girl must give three in their places. Speak the names, and a man will do the rest.”

……..

“Three lives were snatched from a god. Three lives must be repaid. The gods are not mocked.”

Is this “no one” speaking, or has “no one” assumed the face of “Jaqen” so thoroughly that he’s “keeping character” by invoking “Jaqen’s” R’hllorist leanings? The notion that death must not be cheated of 3 lives would seem to be in line with the Faceless, but he blatantly invokes R’hllor here, both directly and in repeating MMD and Mel’s mantra that “only death may pay for life.” So is this a case of merely “keeping character,” or a case where “Jaqen” is letting his true beliefs spill through?

Of additional note, Jaqen seems to contradict the Faceless’ system of non-judgment when he calls Arya an “evil child” after she “names” him. And further, seems to contradict himself when he insists that she gives another name to prevent “Jaqen’s” death, but then goes on to willingly “die” immediately following the weasel soup incident:

“A man hears the whisper of sand in a glass. A man will not sleep until a girl unsays a certain name. Now, evil child.”

……….

“A god has his due. And now a man must die.” A strange smile touched the lips of Jaqen H’ghar.

If simply changing faces constitutes the death of “Jaqen,” then presumably, killing “Jaqen” could have been achieved without weasel soup. I don’t believe weasel soup was about paying that debt. I’m inclined to believe that when Jaqen changes his face, this is actually when the third death is granted. Between the fact that Roose had already arranged for the Northmen to infiltrate Harrenhal, so that taking it for the North was going to happen anyway, and what I suspect might be the development of warmth toward Arya on “Jaqen’s” part, I think this may have been a lesson for Arya, and not necessarily part of the 3-for-3.

I Interpreted things a bit differently...

1. I do not think that Jaqen holds the Red God in any higher esteem than he does any other God… Arya saved the 3 men from burned alive - or given to the Red God, this is the only reason that the Red God comes into play...

I do not think that Jaqen killing Jaqen is the 3rd death… Jaqen himself says "A God Has his due, and now a man must die". (Note: he did not say "A God will have his due, and now a man must die"). Jaqen is killing Jaqen because he does not want all the attention that would come from the prison break… Jaqen even says "a Girl is greedy, here is 3 & here is 4 & there 5…"… And of course, we know that Jaqen is as dead a Ary - which is not dead at all...

[addicted to snow]

I see the Faceless-Men, The Iron Bank of Bravos, and the Sealord of Bravos as being close-knit institutions…

I do not, however think that the 'Gold for Iron' phrase or the alchemist himself have any special meaning that is meant to link them to the Iron Bank...