Arya's Future?

[Colonel Green]

And finally, there's Dareon. The man was certainly an asshole, but he had done nothing wrong. Deserting the Night's Watch may be bad in Westeros, but in his place I would have done the same: as far as we know he was not guilty of the rape that got him sent to the Wall. By judging Dareon (whom she barely knows) she crosses the line beyond which there is no turning back in my book.

I can understand that some people wouldn't see the problem in her killing the likes of the Tickler. I could even understand that some people wouldn't be bothered by her becoming an assassin. But if you were absolutely not bothered by her killing Dareon, that means your moral compass is malfunctioning.

Firstly, Dareon claims he's innocent. We have no idea whether that's true or not. But regardless, in Westeros there is unanimous agreement that deserting the Night's Watch is a death penalty offense. That Arya doesn't feel guilt about it really tells you nothing; Jon doesn't feel guilty about beheading Janos Slynt; the series itself opens with Ned executing another deserter, which he's presumably done before.

[Cas Stark]

But that's the point: we readers do not live in that world. We should not fall into the trap of using its rules.

People who defend Arya by using Westerosi rules miss the point entirely. If you want to discuss Arya's future, you have to take into consideration the fact that she's now a very gray character, a murderer and an assassin, and that this will affect her future, because GRRM and the readership are still in our world.

Is she? You don't know that. Even Arya never deludes herself into thinking she's saving anyone.

As for "deserving to die", I think a civilized human being does not say whether someone "deserves to die" or not. That is for proper trials to determine.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

Guilty of what?

Actually yes, people do go on about how Batman killing anyone would be horrible and immoral. In fact, even in The Dark Knight, Batman does not kill the Joker.

Batman's reluctance to kill is what makes him a relatively moral character.

No, I don't think we miss the point entirely. Ned Stark is unequvocally written as a "good guy" yet he promises his daughter to Joffrey and expect Arya to marry whomever he tells her to, he calls his banners and sent thousands of men to their death in Robert's rebellion, and he beheads NW deserters without a trial.

There are MANY MANY people who I can say deserve to die based on known evidence, with or without a trial. In our society, you get a trial, which I support, that doesn't mean I am not capable of making my own judgments or that I should somehow not form judgments because there is no trial.

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

But that's the point: we readers do not live in that world. We should not fall into the trap of using its rules.

People who defend Arya by using Westerosi rules miss the point entirely. If you want to discuss Arya's future, you have to take into consideration the fact that she's now a very gray character, a murderer and an assassin, and that this will affect her future, because GRRM and the readership are still in our world.

Is she? You don't know that. Even Arya never deludes herself into thinking she's saving anyone.

As for "deserving to die", I think a civilized human being does not say whether someone "deserves to die" or not. That is for proper trials to determine.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

Guilty of what?

I

As a reader if you don`t place yourself in their world their rules when reading how can you empathise with any character?

[Maid So Fair]

But that's the point: we readers do not live in that world. We should not fall into the trap of using its rules.

People who defend Arya by using Westerosi rules miss the point entirely. If you want to discuss Arya's future, you have to take into consideration the fact that she's now a very gray character, a murderer and an assassin, and that this will affect her future, because GRRM and the readership are still in our world.

Do you also consider every lord who administers justice in their lands (ie kills people) an immoral person? Or, better, a psychopath? I see no reason to single Arya out.

Is she? You don't know that. Even Arya never deludes herself into thinking she's saving anyone.

I actually do know that because it's common sense. Do you truly believe that Tickler would just get an epiphany and stop torturing people for fun and profit? Do you think that Raff would not be raping a girl like Mercy next week? Or next month? Please.

As for "deserving to die", I think a civilized human being does not say whether someone "deserves to die" or not. That is for proper trials to determine.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

Guilty of what?

That's all very nice and all, but relies on an existence of a reasonably functioning justice system, which is a given for us living in the 'civilised' world. The problem is that the world Arya is living in is not nearly so civilised and death is usually the only practical penalty for more serious offences. There are no proper trials in her world. None.

I wasn't aware that Arya knew that (him stealing money).

Anyway, theft isn't really a capital offense... As for desertion, I doubt many readers would not have deserted in his place. I certainly don't think it should be punishable by death.

She might have as she spent time hanging out around him, but even if she doesn't that's hardly the point. She knows he's a deserter of the NW and she has seen how he treated Sam. In Westeros, deserting from the NW is a capital offence and you don't really need to commit more than one of those.

Actually yes, people do go on about how Batman killing anyone would be horrible and immoral. In fact, even in The Dark Knight, Batman does not kill the Joker.

Batman's reluctance to kill is what makes him a relatively moral character.

If they do, that's a very unorthodox interpretation. He might not kill the Joker, but he kills plenty of other people. If he killed the Joker would you call it immoral? I can't comment more on this as I don't remember the details from the movies.

[Rippounet]

As a reader if you don`t place yourself in their world their rules when reading how can you empathise with any character?

Uh... The opposite happens: using our world's rules (and morals), I empathise with almost all characters. You don't? Duh! We're reading very different books. :cool4:

Like, I'm surprised so many people seem to condone the killing of Night Watch's deserters. I thought Jon's chapters made it clear that men of the NW often don't deserve the hardships of life at the Wall... Not to mention the fact that Jon himself almost deserted... At least twice.

GRRM wrote books clearly showing that one shouldn't be too quick to see things in black and white... And yet, many of you seem to completely "buy" Arya's POV by defending even her worst actions...

I thought everyone was aware that one had to keep a critical distance with the characters in the books, with their motivations and justifications... :dunno:

Do you also consider every lord who administers justice in their lands (ie kills people) an immoral person? Or, better, a psychopath? I see no reason to single Arya out.

Yes, if the lord kills someone for less than rape or murder, I would say said lord is a slightly immoral person. Too harsh by far, if not clearly tyrannical.

I think as readers, we are meant to see it that way. Several passages in the book help us be critical of a lord's "justice". It's a common feature of the genre too.

I actually do know that because it's common sense. Do you truly believe that Tickler would just get an epiphany and stop torturing people for fun and profit? Do you think that Raff would not be raping a girl like Mercy next week? Or next month? Please.

The Hound got an epiphany. Why not Tickler or Raff?

Anyway, you're missing the point. Tickler and Raff were despicable and probably irredeemable, because they were designed so as characters. Yet, GRRM uses these characters to have you condone murders of others by Arya who are way less despicable and irredeemable (the insurance man, Dareon, random guard #87...).

In other words, because of Tickler and Raff, you overlook what Arya has become.

If they do, that's a very unorthodox interpretation. [batman] might not kill the Joker, but he kills plenty of other people. If he killed the Joker would you call it immoral? I can't comment more on this as I don't remember the details from the movies.

It's the other way around: Batman does not kill the Joker because he has to remain a moral character for the readership.

And this is the orthodox interpretation. Like, "scholarly-analysis-orthodox" of Batman as a character. He's a superhero. Superheroes don't kill, or try not to kill. Miller's Batman was, and is still a bit controversial. Even Man of Steel spawned some controversy because Superman kills in it.

Point is, the moral perspective of a work of fiction determines the fate of its characters. Big time.

If ASOAIF is "moral" at the end, Arya may pay the price for becoming such a ruthless assassin. In fact, I would argue she's already starting to pay that price...

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

Uh... The opposite happens: using our world's rules (and morals), I empathise with almost all characters. You don't? Duh! We're reading very different books. :cool4:

How can you empathise with Arya or any character using only your own world? Has a mad king executed a relative, Frey family invited any relatives to dinner never to be seen again? Been kidnapped by a former sworn sword and dragged around the countryside to be ransomed? Or did you try to join in a game of soccer as a child only to be told no girls allowed and this helps you empathise with Arya, Cersei, and Brienne

[Hand to King Davos]

Uh... The opposite happens: using our world's rules (and morals), I empathise with almost all characters. You don't? Duh! We're reading very different books. :cool4:

Like, I'm surprised so many people seem to condone the killing of Night Watch's deserters. I thought Jon's chapters made it clear that men of the NW often don't deserve the hardships of life at the Wall... Not to mention the fact that Jon himself almost deserted... At least twice.

GRRM wrote books clearly showing that one shouldn't be too quick to see things in black and white... And yet, many of you seem to completely "buy" Arya's POV by defending even her worst actions...

I thought everyone was aware that one had to keep a critical distance with the characters in the books, with their motivations and justifications... :dunno:

Yes, if the lord kills someone for less than rape or murder, I would say said lord is a slightly immoral person. Too harsh by far, if not clearly tyrannical.

I think as readers, we are meant to see it that way. Several passages in the book help us be critical of a lord's "justice". It's a common feature of the genre too.

The Hound got an epiphany. Why not Tickler or Raff?

Anyway, you're missing the point. Tickler and Raff were despicable and probably irredeemable, because they were designed so as characters. Yet, GRRM uses these characters to have you condone murders of others by Arya who are way less despicable and irredeemable (the insurance man, Dareon, random guard #87...).

In other words, because of Tickler and Raff, you overlook what Arya has become.

It's the other way around: Batman does not kill the Joker because he has to remain a moral character for the readership.

And this is the orthodox interpretation. Like, "scholarly-analysis-orthodox" of Batman as a character. He's a superhero. Superheroes don't kill, or try not to kill. Miller's Batman was, and is still a bit controversial. Even Man of Steel spawned some controversy because Superman kills in it.

Point is, the moral perspective of a work of fiction determines the fate of its characters. Big time.

If ASOAIF is "moral" at the end, Arya may pay the price for becoming such a ruthless assassin. In fact, I would argue she's already starting to pay that price...

Judging the morality of an action and the morality of a character are often two different things. Do I believe that it is immoral, in Arya's circumstance, to kill Raff? Quite possible; I think you could make a very compelling case, despite the fact that Raff is guilty of many crimes that would likely merit a death sentence in our world. Do I think this makes Arya immoral? Not necessarily. She lives in a world that is much harsher than yours or mine, and with a much harsher sense of justice.

I support the death penalty for NW deserters. One reason is that in many cases, this is the alternative to the death sentence, or at least castration, and if they don't stay put on the Wall, there is no other option. BTW, I would not have deserted in Dareon's place, so that argument doesn't work for me.

Now, I don't consider Arya to be perfect. She is heading down a dark path, and with the insurance man she is getting dangerously close to pure assassination, if she isn't there already. The only thing saving her right now is her sense of justice, and her unwillingness to kill someone who she feels does not deserve it. However, if she doesn't leave the FM soon, even that might evaporate. Thankfully, I think Arya will be leaving shortly after the Mercy chapter.

[Hand to King Davos]

How can you empathise with Arya or any character using only your own world? Has a mad king executed a relative, Frey family invited any relatives to dinner never to be seen again? Been kidnapped by a former sworn sword and dragged around the countryside to be ransomed? Or did you try to join in a game of soccer as a child only to be told no girls allowed and this helps you empathise with Arya, Cersei, and Brienne

:agree:

We need to enter their world to understand the characters. Our world can help us judge the actions, their world helps us understand the characters.

[lomiller]

But that's the point: we readers do not live in that world. We should not fall into the trap of using its rules.

While this is true we also can't fall into the trap of selectively applying rules from our world. If you do chose our world as the standard all characters have to meet there are no major characters who don't fail badly.

If you want to discuss Arya's future, you have to take into consideration the fact that she's now a very gray character, a murderer and an assassin, and that this will affect her future, because GRRM and the readership are still in our world.

Is that better or worse than an aspiring dictator who's willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives to gain power?

[lomiller]

 

Yes, if the lord kills someone for less than rape or murder, I would say said lord is a slightly immoral person. Too harsh by far, if not clearly tyrannical.

By the rules most of us live under being a lord with the hereditary right to decide what the law is and how/when to implement it is just about as evil as it gets.

[Pod The Impaler]

Arya shall rule as the rightful queen of Bartertown Westeros.

[Rippounet]

How can you empathise with Arya or any character using only your own world?

Why would I not?

More importantly, why would I, as a reader, adapt my morals to a fantasy world?

Just because ASOAIF is a rather credible medieval world does not mean we should condone its violence and injustice, or the crimes committed by the characters. One can understand or sympathize, but there's a fine line not to cross with condoning.

Otherwise, by your own reasoning, there shouldn't be anything wrong with torture -since this is a medieval world. Even rape -in times of war- should not be a capital offense, but more of a minor misdemeanor for a soldier.

If you want to defend Arya's actions by using Westerosi "rules", then, by that own logic, Tickler, Raff or Gregor are nothing more than the products of the world they live in and can hardly be held fully responsible for their actions. Instead, the one responsible for their deeds would be their lord.

If you defend Arya's ruthlessness, than by that same logic, characters like Cersei or Tywin are no worse.

By the rules most of us live under being a lord with the hereditary right to decide what the law is and how/when to implement it is just about as evil as it gets.

While this is true we also can't fall into the trap of selectively applying rules from our world. If you do chose our world as the standard all characters have to meet there are no major characters who don't fail badly.

Yes & Yes.

Which is why few of the characters -if any- will "live happily ever after". GRRM will bend a few rules, but I doubt he'll take the risk of writing a deeply immoral ending to the whole series.

Thus, there is a price to pay for Arya - in my humble opinion. This is just my opinion mind you, feel free to think Arya will be spared the "moral reckoning".

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

How can you empathise with Arya or any character using only your own world? Has a mad king executed a relative, Frey family invited any relatives to dinner never to be seen again? Been kidnapped by a former sworn sword and dragged around the countryside to be ransomed? Or did you try to join in a game of soccer as a child only to be told no girls allowed and this helps you empathise with Arya, Cersei, and Brienne

Why would I not?

More importantly, why would I, as a reader, adapt my morals to a fantasy world?

Question wasn`t why, it was how? How can you empathise with a character in a fantasy world by only using your own worlds rules and morals. Sticking to your rules you can judge the characters but you can`t empathise with them. Fact.

[Hand to King Davos]

Why would I not?

More importantly, why would I, as a reader, adapt my morals to a fantasy world?

Just because ASOAIF is a rather credible medieval world does not mean we should condone its violence and injustice, or the crimes committed by the characters. One can understand or sympathize, but there's a fine line not to cross with condoning.

Otherwise, by your own reasoning, there shouldn't be anything wrong with torture -since this is a medieval world. Even rape -in times of war- should not be a capital offense, but more of a minor misdemeanor for a soldier.

If you want to defend Arya's actions by using Westerosi "rules", then, by that own logic, Tickler, Raff or Gregor are nothing more than the products of the world they live in and can hardly be held fully responsible for their actions. Instead, the one responsible for their deeds would be their lord.

If you defend Arya's ruthlessness, than by that same logic, characters like Cersei or Tywin are no worse.

Yes & Yes.

Which is why few of the characters -if any- will "live happily ever after". GRRM will bend a few rules, but I doubt he'll take the risk of writing a deeply immoral ending to the whole series.

Thus, there is a price to pay for Arya - in my humble opinion. This is just my opinion mind you, feel free to think Arya will be spared the "moral reckoning".

Again, the difference between judging actions and judging characters. Many of Arya's actions, like those of pretty much everyone in Westeros, I would consider immoral. However, that does not make her an immoral person. People are influenced by their cultures, and their sense of morality is as well.

[chrisdaw]

There's nothing to be determined from questioning the morality of Westerosi laws as far as Arya's arc is concerned. It's simple, Dareon deserved to die, but it was not Arya's place to play judge and executioner. GRRM makes this clear enough through the KM, but there's the parallel all the way back in the second chapter. When Ned executes Gared for desertion GRRM makes it apparent he does so with all the authority bestowed upon him as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North and in the name of the king.

Arya doesn't yet understand this concept or the importance of lawful authority, but she will learn, through Stoneheart and Sandor and whoever else, that's her arc.

[Hand to King Davos]

There's nothing to be determined from questioning the morality of Westerosi laws as far as Arya's arc is concerned. It's simple, Dareon deserved to die, but it was not Arya's place to play judge and executioner. GRRM makes this clear enough through the KM, but there's the parallel all the way back in the second chapter. When Ned executes Gared for desertion GRRM makes it apparent he does so with all the authority bestowed upon him as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North and in the name of the king.

Arya doesn't yet understand this concept or the importance of lawful authority, but she will learn, through Stoneheart and Sandor and whoever else, that's her arc.

Who would that authority be? Cersei? Roose Bolton? His son Ramsey? Littlefinger?

I am normally all for lawful authority, but another theme in Arya's arc, and in the whole series for that matter, is that those in authority don't necessarily deserve it, nor will they render a just decision. If Arya doesn't trust the king's justice after her father got a dose of it from Joffrey, can you really blame her?

And how will Stoneheart teach her about lawful authority? By not having it?

[Colonel Green]

There's nothing to be determined from questioning the morality of Westerosi laws as far as Arya's arc is concerned. It's simple, Dareon deserved to die, but it was not Arya's place to play judge and executioner. GRRM makes this clear enough through the KM, but there's the parallel all the way back in the second chapter. When Ned executes Gared for desertion GRRM makes it apparent he does so with all the authority bestowed upon him as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North and in the name of the king.

Arya doesn't yet understand this concept or the importance of lawful authority, but she will learn, through Stoneheart and Sandor and whoever else, that's her arc.

I'm not really sure how you can read the series as being about the importance of lawful authority, since one of the main points is that power in Westeros is frequently exercised with enormous arbitrariness and there is little in the way of real justice. The Kingsroad incident drove that home early on.

[chrisdaw]

Who would that authority be? Cersei? Roose Bolton? His son Ramsey? Littlefinger?

I am normally all for lawful authority, but another theme in Arya's arc, and in the whole series for that matter, is that those in authority don't necessarily deserve it, nor will they render a just decision. If Arya doesn't trust the king's justice after her father got a dose of it from Joffrey, can you really blame her?

And how will Stoneheart teach her about lawful authority? By not having it?

That's not Arya's arc, it's Jaime's. The BWB and Stoneheart are what happens when those in power fail in their duty to provide justice. He's off to see the results first hand, it will not be pretty.

Stoneheart is vengeance, not justice, and when she comes to "judge" Roslin, Elmar or whoever else may be the trigger, Arya will reject her and in doing so reject vigilantism.

[FirstofHerName]

Arya is as responsible for Lady's death as Sansa is for Ned's.

Very true, but whether she was responsible or not is irrelevant, she feels like it was her fault and not only does that upset her but it drives a lot of her hatred towards the lannisters, ya feel

[Rippounet]

Again, the difference between judging actions and judging characters. Many of Arya's actions, like those of pretty much everyone in Westeros, I would consider immoral. However, that does not make her an immoral person. People are influenced by their cultures, and their sense of morality is as well.

For some reason I understand the point you're making today... Hmmm, of course you might be right, but I still think there are hints in Arya's chapters that she's crossed some lines and actually enjoys killing... So it's not just about her actions anymore.

We'll have to see in her next chapters how she turns out, but I'd say she'll become very scary... H***, she's already scaring me...

Question wasn`t why, it was how? How can you empathise with a character in a fantasy world by only using your own worlds rules and morals. Sticking to your rules you can judge the characters but you can`t empathise with them. Fact.

Ok, first you can't just apply the label "fact" to a personal opinion on someone else's reading, that borders on the ridiculous. I would think I know what's in my head better than you... ;)

It is perfectly possible to understand someone even when you don't agree with their reasoning or condone their actions. I love Arya's chapters precisely because it's easy to empathise with her desire for revenge, but without losing sight of the fact that this is not necessarily the best/moral path to walk for a young girl, and that it is twisting her into a monster. I root for her, but knowing she might be deranged.

You seem to believe there is only empathy through genuine identification. But there are many ways to read a book. Suspension of disbelief does not mean loss of critical distance, or total identification with a character.