Syrio neither dead nor Jaqen

[Maia]

Heh, I leave for a weekend and this thread explodes! Anyway, I feel compelled to comment on some points. I feel that in many cases Arya's detractors persist in igmoring the really huge differences between her society and ours when they try to stick her with the sociopath label. The fact is, that certain behaviors, which are now considered problematic in the Western World, used to be endorsed and encouraged in the earlier periods of history.

For instance: desentization towards death and dead bodies. People are creeped out by Arya plucking apples while ignoring the corpses. It is well to remember, however, that well into 19th century executions used to be spectacles, to which the audience would take their children, eat snacks, talk, joke, etc. Now, given this, doesn't such an accusation against Arya look really laughable? She is just a person of her time.
BTW, we see many examples of young POVs not being in the leasted disturbed by death - Egg with the crow cage with body in it in the "Sworn Sword", Sansa during the tourney and after her father's execution, Bran in the ruins of Winterfell, etc, etc.

Then there is this notion that Arya was somehow the least affected by her first killing. This is patently untrue. We saw quite a few of the POVs killing for the first time:

Tyrion - during the fight with the mountain clansmen. No reaction, except for adrenaline high and subsequent tiredness.

Cat - during the same fight, she cut somebody's throat from behind. No reaction.

Jon - well, he has some time to consider the thought of killing somebody and does - and let's remember that he intends to slit somebody's throat in their sleep, not meet them in a "fair (as if a trained, armored and armed with Valyrian steel against somebody with stone-age weapons could ever be fair!) fight, so all this talk about how it's "different" in a battle and throat-slitting of an unsuspecting person is particularly treacherous is so much hogwash, then nothing. No torment, no remorse, no nightmares. No hesitation about the killings he considers justified. And let's not bring up Ygritte - Jon has been socialized not to kill women. He had zero problems with killing men when he felt it was called for.

Bran - kills people when warged into Summer, actually tastes their blood, etc. NO REACTION! If you look for a disturbing killer-child, that's what I'd pick. Ditto posessing Hodor, etc. In any case, no remorse, no nightmares, nothing.

I have seen Theon brought up - conveniently leaving out that he had been reaveing on the Stony Shore for some weeks and mentions in passing how they were murdering children right and left.

[Lord Renly]

I disagree with the comparison to Jaime, as I'm not clear how Arya had "other ways of solving the problem." It seems quite simple to me: she could either spare him and face a likely grim fate, or kill him. I don't see that Arya had any way of mitigating the risk that he'd squeal without killing him. Maybe there's a possibility I'm not seeing. (But if so, then I surely can't expect [i]her[/i] to see it, within the split-second she has to decide!)

Jaime, on the other hand, was a grown man faced with an ignorant [i]child[/i] who could have (as [i]Cersei[/i] of all people pointed out) been sweet-talked into keeping his mouth shut. So killing Bran was not the only way to stop him.

Jaime could have also taken Cersei and the children and gone into exile, hiding from Robert. Ned was willing to risk his fortune and life to give Cersei this chance, so we can assume it's a fair bet they could survive in exile. I'm not seeing that Arya had any similar option here.

And of course, as AryaSnow said, if Jaime truly wanted to protect himself and his children then he could have simply [i]stopped screwing his sister[/i] so he couldn't possibly get caught screwing her. I think that has to be part of the calculus when judging him, that he put himself in that situation in the first place. It also has to be part of the calculus that, if he [i]was[/i] going to continue having sex with Cersei, he and Cersei (both adults) should have given some prior thought to what they would do if someone found them out so they wouldn't have to make a split-second decision about it.

The problem with calling Arya a "sociopath" is that it's against all clinical and common usage of the term. A sociopath is supposed to be someone without conscience, so a sociopath with a moral compass is an oxymoron. I don't think she's a "smurf" either, honestly, as that seems a way of calling her a sociopath without using the word. The child soldier comparison is probably the best anyone has come up with so far.

As for the slippery slope, I'm still not seeing a necessary link between killing for personal and/or security reasons and killing for hire as a Faceless Person. It simply isn't true that killing for Reason A is necessarily linked to killing for Reason B. Arya may yet get darker, but so far I don't see any suggestion of either wanton or mercenary killing. I think a more plausible form of "darkness" for her would be going overboard in pursuit of revenge. This isn't to say GRRM couldn't write her as [i]becoming[/i] wanton and/or mercenary, just that the journey has yet to happen.