Arya endgame?

[ser charles candle]

I always figured that Aryas endgame would be Varys and Illyrio. what better way to put to use her training. Just an opinion, but ever since she overheard the conversation between the spider and cheesemonger. ive always felt she would bring them down.

[Nevets]

4 hours ago, DutchArya said:

Arya is literally introduced in the books for the first time by Jon as he described her being "in love"

Not to be nitpicky, but that was actually Catelyn, talking to Ned in the godswood.

I agree overall with your post, though.  One thing that has frustrated me is the number of posters who reject out of hand the suggestion that Arya can ever be happy, or have a normal relationship, especially a romantic one.  She's either too damaged, or too good for one, or doesn't deserve one.  Nonsense!  Yes, she is troubled, but her upbringing as a Stark and Tully has kept her grounded and I think will help her heal.  And it's clear from the preview chapter that she is discovering her sexuality - even if it's a bit twisted there.  I really would like to see her fall in love with someone, and I very much expect her to lose her maidenhood in Winds, but for some reason I doubt it will be to Gendry.

5 hours ago, DutchArya said:

I mentioned earlier, the Stark children will not end with the life they all grew up expecting or wishing for. This is plain to see. 

I keep thinking of her father's comment about her marrying a king and having his children, and she immediately rejects the idea, saying "That's Sansa".  I wonder ...  Maybe not a King, per se, but someone powerful nonetheless.  For Arya, that could be a bittersweet ending.

[Elisabetta Duò]

Personally, I tend to thin she will either die / warg into Nymeria forever, because of the famous Jon - Arya AGOT line

"You'll be sewing all through winter. When the spring thaw comes, they will find your body with a needle still locked tight between your frozen fingers." 

=> you'll be killing people (sewing as 'using your needle ') throughout winter. When summer comes, they will find your frozen body (not 'you', but 'your body' = either a dead corpse or she warged into Nymeria forever) with the sword Needle still in your hand.

She's in my top5 as a character, but that doesn't change that this is her most likely endgame imo.

I also think this line was the dialogue line the guy of the comic books mentioned, when he said GRRM had him change the AGOT book to include a dialogue line he had overlooked and Martin wanted in because it would be relevant at the end.

As a side note, I don't think anything Ned - Ned, out of all people, the man who was unable to see whatever was in front of him with a big light on it - said or wished for Arya will come true. I don't think GRRM would ever use Ned as a vehicle of foreshadowing. One might think it would be ironic hence GMMNesque (anything absurd would be) ...personally I don't really see it. As I wouldn't give any importance to any AGOT phrase including the words king or queen, because it would be too obvious.

[Demonking1381]

Sadly I think Arya's eventually going to die before the end of the series, eventually she'll get to the point where she finishes killing people in westoros but really there is not much else you can do with her after that, besides Martin is running out of characters to kill off so it's only a matter of time since she really serves no purpose.

[Arya Targaryen]

1 hour ago, Demonking1381 said:

Sadly I think Arya's eventually going to die before the end of the series, eventually she'll get to the point where she finishes killing people in westoros but really there is not much else you can do with her after that, besides Martin is running out of characters to kill off so it's only a matter of time since she really serves no purpose.

All her training sets her up to become a ruler - or a Lady of castle. We know she is much better than Sansa in managing a household - that's the only educational stuff meant for girls, in which Arya is better that Sansa. Why include it? And detecting lies, learning languages, knowing a lot about the smallfolk and seeing the highborn through their eyes would all help her becoming a fair ruler. I never, for one second, thought that Arya's main purpose in the story is to become an assassin or just killing people. If anything, I fail to see Rickon's and Sansa's importance to the story - though Sansa can help Winterfell through the winter if she becomes the Lady of the Vale with her marriage to Harry the Heir. Rickon will die before the end, I'm pretty sure of that. he is a minor character (hardly a character at all) who has a Shaggydog story.

[delspark]

19 hours ago, DutchArya said:

Her training in the HoBW sees Arya excel at the practical tasks and skills like learning languages or understanding people's motivations and lying to the KM, Yet she struggles with the internal stuff. Why? She can't divorce herself from Arya Stark when every time she goes to sleep she becomes the Night Wolf and has Needle hidden away. The kills she makes are entirely emotional and are what gets her in trouble. She feels deeply despite all her efforts.

I think she will definitely return to Westeros in the books as a maiden grown, highborn and an heir to Winterfell and the North. She is extremely valuable. Will she allow herself to be used? And if so, under what circumstances and for whose gain? Arya has spent a lot of time since KL sacrificing parts of herself to survive or seek justice for her family. If she was in a position where she could sacrifice her own ambitions and perceived freedoms with the aim of raising up her House or protecting the people she loves - do you think she is capable of doing that? If so, would that not be bittersweet for Arya Stark? 

I mentioned earlier, the Stark children will not end with the life they all grew up expecting or wishing for. This is plain to see. 

 

That exactly is what going to keep her rooted and not commit the same mistakes like Sansa,Lyanna for love. Her training to become a No one requires not being emotionally attached and not kill for vengeance but to eradicate the root cause. Her stubbornness to leave behind her identity makes her question her actions. Her whole arc is to regain a balance between desires and sacrifices. How to bring an end to the political war without losing herself. I personally love Arya and feel her character should be standalone and class apart from other women in the story. In short I would like to see her redifine the notion about girls being viewed as sexual objects and are solely for romancing.

[Elisabetta Duò]

4 hours ago, Arya Targaryen said:

All her training sets her up to become a ruler - or a Lady of castle. We know she is much better than Sansa in managing a household - that's the only educational stuff meant for girls, in which Arya is better that Sansa. Why include it? And detecting lies, learning languages, knowing a lot about the smallfolk and seeing the highborn through their eyes would all help her becoming a fair ruler. I never, for one second, thought that Arya's main purpose in the story is to become an assassin or just killing people. If anything, I fail to see Rickon's and Sansa's importance to the story - though Sansa can help Winterfell through the winter if she becomes the Lady of the Vale with her marriage to Harry the Heir. Rickon will die before the end, I'm pretty sure of that. he is a minor character (hardly a character at all) who has a Shaggydog story.

True, but that doesn't mean she will survive and become the Lady of some castle...she has probably a role to play in the upcoming war, but i think she will either die or warg into Nymeria forever for the reasons I've said before.

I don't think anyone ever doubted that Rickon will die, btw.

[Anton Martell]

On 25 juillet 2016 at 2:01 PM, Maester of Valyria said:

I like to think that Arya will end up being Dany's bodyguard against the Faceless Men (who will want to kill the Mother of Dragons as soon as she stops fighting slavery). I also think that she'll claim a dragon at some point, given the foreshadowing in TPATQ with Nettles' similarities to her.

Why would the FM be against her? Someone might ask them about killing her, but why would they want, on their own to kill her?

 

As for Arya, I believe she is going to be the example that Vengeance is useless. She is going to get corrupted by it more and more. And in the end she might achieve it but she will be destroyed. A lot of her PoV have this kind of ominous sentences like:

 

Quote

Arya plunged deeper into the darkness (AGOT)

Quote

Her fingers were sticky with blood (...) The rain will wash them clean again(ACOK, and emphasis in the text)

and there are others I can't think of right now. Clearly she is becoming a sort of psychopath/Sociopath that I believe will be consumed by vengeance. I think she has a sort of connection with Lady Stoneheart (other than her being her mom obviously). I'm in the middle of a reread so I'll see if I can find evidence, but I think there is a link between the two. Both only care about vengeance in the end.

 

I love Arya, but I don't see her as a ruler, but as a warrior/fighter. In what capacity though, I do not know. As for her dying, it makes some sense, it's true, but I don't know about that yet.

 

One thing though about what was said earlier: I really think it's Jaime who will kill Cersei, thematically it's what makes most sense: the two lovers who finally discover they are not good for each other. 

 

As for the whole Black Betha/White Hart analogy I really think it's stretching it, but your analysis was interesting to read

[Philokles]

Sorry to continue down an off topic rabbit-hole, but, for the purposes of this, here is the dictionary.com definition of a psychopath. I don't see how Arya matches it in any way.

Quote

a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

She has one of the strongest senses of right and wrong of any character in the series. For example, Chiswyck does nothing against her personally, but his history of sexual violence compels her to give his name to Jaqen. You may disagree with the morality she holds but it clearly exists.

A little introverted, maybe, but far from antisocial in her behaviour.

One half of the closest personal relationship we've seen.

Nope.

Probably the best at adapting to new conditions and learning from past mistakes - e.g. the use of her third wish from Jaqen.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 hour ago, Anton Martell said:

As for Arya, I believe she is going to be the example that Vengeance is useless. She is going to get corrupted by it more and more. And in the end she might achieve it but she will be destroyed. A lot of her PoV have this kind of ominous sentences like:

"Useless", it's a weird word to characterize vengeance in general. Usefulness has, by definition, a purpose attached to it; and that purpose is not always the same and certainly not self-evident. For examble, there is no way you can describe "the rains of Castamere", the notorious act of vengeance in-series, as "useless": it had a very specific purpose and it surely delivered the desired results.

That said, it is often implied that there is one universal purpose in all vengeance seekers and that is to undo the psychological harm that the original wrongdoing caused to them, or, in other words, achieve "inner peace" or something of that sort. While this might be true for some, it is not unequivocally true for all, it disregards the societal functions of vengeance -especially in disorganised and/or fundamentally unjust contexts like the one this series is built upon- and it is a product of a very (temporally and culturally limited) scpecific viewpoint regarding vengeance. It is not an axiomatic truth, like it's treated; all the while, it's still not useless: some people do, and have, found resolution and solace upon vengeance.

What's more, even if Arya's endgame is to be destroyed by her desire for vengeance, I very much doubt that it will be done in such a naively moralizing and blatant manner as it is often proposed. Even as far back as in the 19th centrury, good writers knew how to give a "vice and emptiness of revenge" story so much better than that - see Monte Cristo, for a classic reference.

GRRM has already given us some much more elegant revenge arcs to ponder about: compare and contrast the lives and ending(s) of the Martell brothers, just to give one examble... In the end (as I see it), it's not about the goal (revenge in this case, but it's the same with so many other objectives) but with how far is one determined to go in order to achieve it and what they are willing to sacrifice in the process. Oh, and what else they do meanwhile.

(A propos, same goes with death as endgame: narratively speaking, all characters "die" in the end; it's what they achieve until that point that really matters.)

 

For all the above reasons I believe that there is not much, if at all, merit in the easy "to show that revenge is bad" answer to what Arya's character primary purpose and final destination may be.

[a black swan]

35 minutes ago, Horse of Kent said:

Sorry to continue down an off topic rabbit-hole, but, for the purposes of this, here is the dictionary.com definition of a psychopath. I don't see how Arya matches it in any way.

She has one of the strongest senses of right and wrong of any character in the series. For example, Chiswyck does nothing against her personally, but his history of sexual violence compels her to give his name to Jaqen. You may disagree with the morality she holds but it clearly exists.

A little introverted, maybe, but far from antisocial in her behaviour.

One half of the closest personal relationship we've seen.

Nope.

Probably the best at adapting to new conditions and learning from past mistakes - e.g. the use of her third wish from Jaqen.

Excellent.

It's a common slur people who hate her character use. They do it with zero understanding of the actual concept and have only the aim of diminishing her. It's pathetic. 

[a black swan]

20 hours ago, Elisabetta Duò said:

Personally, I tend to thin she will either die / warg into Nymeria forever, because of the famous Jon - Arya AGOT line

"You'll be sewing all through winter. When the spring thaw comes, they will find your body with a needle still locked tight between your frozen fingers." 

=> you'll be killing people (sewing as 'using your needle ') throughout winter. When summer comes, they will find your frozen body (not 'you', but 'your body' = either a dead corpse or she warged into Nymeria forever) with the sword Needle still in your hand.

She's in my top5 as a character, but that doesn't change that this is her most likely endgame imo.I also think this line was the dialogue line the guy of the comic books mentioned, when he said GRRM had him change the AGOT book to include a dialogue line he had overlooked and Martin wanted in because it would be relevant at the end.

I think you're discounting the first half of the what Jon said and that completely takes, the part you highlighted, out of context. 

An excellent summation by chrisdaw was done here: 

I disagree about the comic book line too. A very good case for the line about Ned telling Arya she would marry a King (which was also changed in the Show by d&d for obvious reasons) But unlike d&d, Daniel Abraham is friends with GRRM and listened to his warning. 

Quote

As a side note, I don't think anything Ned - Ned, out of all people, the man who was unable to see whatever was in front of him with a big light on it - said or wished for Arya will come true. I don't think GRRM would ever use Ned as a vehicle of foreshadowing. One might think it would be ironic hence GMMNesque (anything absurd would be) ...personally I don't really see it. As I wouldn't give any importance to any AGOT phrase including the words king or queen, because it would be too obvious.

 

Yeah, I don't agree with any of this. But we'll see how right or wrong Ned ends up being.

What are your thoughts on Arya's direwolf being named Nymeria? It's been made clear in the text that these wolves were sent by the Old Gods and are deeply connected to their owners. The only Stark to name their direwolf after a real person - what, if any, significance will that have on Arya? 

 

Also, I see you think her ending up dead or "dead" in her wolf, which she will eventually completely faded away in... Seems like where her story arc is going? Seems a bit wasteful. Spending this much time on a character battling and being consumed by death while alive - to just then succumb to it? If anything, seeing her go on and live and face challenges in her life, with her experiences, would be a much better outcome and better storytelling overall. 

[Anton Martell]

2 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

Sorry to continue down an off topic rabbit-hole, but, for the purposes of this, here is the dictionary.com definition of a psychopath. I don't see how Arya matches it in any way.

She has one of the strongest senses of right and wrong of any character in the series. For example, Chiswyck does nothing against her personally, but his history of sexual violence compels her to give his name to Jaqen. You may disagree with the morality she holds but it clearly exists.

A little introverted, maybe, but far from antisocial in her behaviour.

One half of the closest personal relationship we've seen.

Nope.

Probably the best at adapting to new conditions and learning from past mistakes - e.g. the use of her third wish from Jaqen.

I knew psycho/sociopath was not a good definition. I should have put quote marks. What I meant was her going to a dark path. I am clearly mistaken in that and I basically knew it while writing the word. I shall try to find a better word.

1 hour ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

"Useless", it's a weird word to characterize vengeance in general. Usefulness has, by definition, a purpose attached to it; and that purpose is not always the same and certainly not self-evident. For examble, there is no way you can describe "the rains of Castamere", the notorious act of vengeance in-series, as "useless": it had a very specific purpose and it surely delivered the desired results.

That said, it is often implied that there is one universal purpose in all vengeance seekers and that is to undo the psychological harm that the original wrongdoing caused to them, or, in other words, achieve "inner peace" or something of that sort. While this might be true for some, it is not unequivocally true for all, it disregards the societal functions of vengeance -especially in disorganised and/or fundamentally unjust contexts like the one this series is built upon- and it is a product of a very (temporally and culturally limited) scpecific viewpoint regarding vengeance. It is not an axiomatic truth, like it's treated; all the while, it's still not useless: some people do, and have, found resolution and solace upon vengeance.

What's more, even if Arya's endgame is to be destroyed by her desire for vengeance, I very much doubt that it will be done in such a naively moralizing and blatant manner as it is often proposed. Even as far back as in the 19th centrury, good writers knew how to give a "vice and emptiness of revenge" story so much better than that - see Monte Cristo, for a classic reference.

GRRM has already given us some much more elegant revenge arcs to ponder about: compare and contrast the lives and ending(s) of the Martell brothers, just to give one examble... In the end (as I see it), it's not about the goal (revenge in this case, but it's the same with so many other objectives) but with how far is one determined to go in order to achieve it and what they are willing to sacrifice in the process. Oh, and what else they do meanwhile.

(A propos, same goes with death as endgame: narratively speaking, all characters "die" in the end; it's what they achieve until that point that really matters.)

 

For all the above reasons I believe that there is not much, if at all, merit in the easy "to show that revenge is bad" answer to what Arya's character primary purpose and final destination may be.

Useless in a Doylist sense. That is is futile. That revenge don't bring you much in the end. This is what Catelyn says in AGOT after Ned: revenge won't bring back Ned, so let's make peace. This is what Ellaria wants as well, believing that revenge is not something that really is desirable. Of course 

 

When you think about it, revenge is rarely done by a character that knows about it, only the reader: Janos Slynt for example is killed by Jon who doesn't know what he did to his father. I do believe that one of ASOIAF theme is that vengeance is not really something that one should seek. And I do believe Arya is a sort of cautionary tale. Of course she'll never be cartoonish or black and white, and I apologize if I seemed to lack nuance. But this is my take on Arya: I love the character, but a part of her is getting tarnished by vengeance or at least some sort of violent behaviour (see the two quote I put, Dareon death etc.) (FYI: I did not read Mercy). She is going into a dark path. Maybe she'll be "saved", but I don't think so. And I think that her as a ruler would be a weird U-turn. 

 

Now you don't seem to agree at all, and that's fine, I'm not saying I have the truth of it. And I'm sure GRRM will put it in a great and complex way. Probably that vengeance can be satisfying on many levels, but that in the end it might not be the right path. Sort of a grey area.

 

As for the rains of castamere: that was not vengeance, that was a display of power. Lord Reyne didn't do much thing that would call for "revenge". He provoked the lord, and got a brutal reaction.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

48 minutes ago, Anton Martell said:

Useless in a Doylist sense. That is is futile. That revenge don't bring you much in the end. This is what Catelyn says in AGOT after Ned: revenge won't bring back Ned, so let's make peace. This is what Ellaria wants as well, believing that revenge is not something that really is desirable. Of course 

[...]

Yea, I understood in what sense you were using the word, but still, no one ever has actually believed that vengeance would undo the wrongdoings literaly, as in rising the dead, to put it crudely. (And yet, a certain degree of comeuppance to the wrongdoers is still sought after, in consideration that the wronged parties should feel satisfied by the dispensation of justice, even in the modern justice systems.)

But I can agree to disagree, so I'm not arguing this anymore. Just a thing about Cat: it's not the supposed futility of vengeance that held her back. It's that she weighted the risks for the living (e.g. the life and future of Robb) against her wish for revenge and (obviously) she valued the former much more, enough to suppress her need for revenge (yes, that need was always present if you read her chapters carefully). Eventually, when all was lost and there was nothing to hold her back, revenge became her one and only reason to exist. IMO, Lady Stoneheart is the natural evolution of Cat after losing everything that mattered to her, even if she had not died (hypothesis made only for the sake of argument, because plotwise it cannot stand).

Accordingly, I really wonder whether Ellaria would be able to keep her (commendable, in her circumstances) stance if she had also lost not only Oberyn but all her little snakes as well... because it seems to me that Ellaria when giving that speech, she's in the place of Catelyn when she was giving hers. (Plus there is nobody still alive that can be blamed for Oberyn's death, really, while with Ned that's an entirely different story.)

 

One last thing, most of the times revenge is closely connected to a display, if not exactly of power, of retaliation capacity in order to prevent potential future assaults. That's one of the primary reasons it has traditionally been so important in less centralized societies.

[Anton Martell]

4 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Yea, I understood in what sense you were using the word, but still, no one ever has actually believed that vengeance would undo the wrongdoings literaly, as in rising the dead, to put it crudely. (And yet, a certain degree of comeuppance to the wrongdoers is still sought after, in consideration that the wronged parties should feel satisfied by the dispensation of justice, even in the modern justice systems.)

But I can agree to disagree, so I'm not arguing this anymore. Just a thing about Cat: it's not the supposed futility of vengeance that held her back. It's that she weighted the risks for the living (e.g. the life and future of Robb) against her wish for revenge and (obviously) she valued the former much more, enough to suppress her need for revenge (yes, that need was always present if you read her chapters carefully). Eventually, when all was lost and there was nothing to hold her back, revenge became her one and only reason to exist. IMO, Lady Stoneheart is the natural evolution of Cat after losing everything that mattered to her, even if she had not died (hypothesis made only for the sake of argument, because plotwise it cannot stand).

Accordingly, I really wonder whether Ellaria would be able to keep her (commendable, in her circumstances) stance if she had also lost not only Oberyn but all her little snakes as well... because it seems to me that Ellaria when giving that speech, she's in the place of Catelyn when she was giving hers. (Plus there is nobody still alive that can be blamed for Oberyn's death, really, while with Ned that's an entirely different story.)

 

One last thing, most of the times revenge is closely connected to a display, if not exactly of power, of retaliation capacity in order to prevent potential future assaults. That's one of the primary reasons it has traditionally been so important in less centralized societies.

I'm not saying vengeance is "bad" and/or "useless" for me, just that it's the take I had from GRRM. That revenge for itself is not "good". You can seek justice, but not retribution. Basically she choses to kill those who wronged her/her beliefs/her friends and family. And that is the wrong way to see that. She should want justice. But when she tried to get justice (i.e. with Nymeria/Lady) she saw that justice was not possible and that it was corrupted, therefore vengeance is the right path for her. But it's a narrow view, from a child. Again, that's my take :). And yes let's agree to disagree.

 

You make incredibly compelling points about Cat/Lady Stoneheart (which is why I think she is what could become Arya in some way if she doesn't change her mind), and about Ellaria. I did not see it that way. But part of them also acknowledge that getting revenge would not bring back the loved one, even if there was no risk to their living families. 

[Philokles]

2 hours ago, Anton Martell said:

I knew psycho/sociopath was not a good definition. I should have put quote marks. What I meant was her going to a dark path. I am clearly mistaken in that and I basically knew it while writing the word. I shall try to find a better word.

That was less aimed at you than the 'Arya is as evil as Joffrey, Ramsay, Cersei, etc' brigade who use the term in a much more malevolent manner.

1 hour ago, Anton Martell said:

I'm not saying vengeance is "bad" and/or "useless" for me, just that it's the take I had from GRRM. That revenge for itself is not "good". You can seek justice, but not retribution. Basically she choses to kill those who wronged her/her beliefs/her friends and family. And that is the wrong way to see that. She should want justice. But when she tried to get justice (i.e. with Nymeria/Lady) she saw that justice was not possible and that it was corrupted, therefore vengeance is the right path for her. But it's a narrow view, from a child. Again, that's my take :). And yes let's agree to disagree.

 

You make incredibly compelling points about Cat/Lady Stoneheart (which is why I think she is what could become Arya in some way if she doesn't change her mind), and about Ellaria. I did not see it that way. But part of them also acknowledge that getting revenge would not bring back the loved one, even if there was no risk to their living families. 

I feel GRRM's point about justice-revenge is a lot more nuanced that justice=good and revenge=bad. I don't want to go into it in great depth either, partly because it is such a lengthy topic and partly because Shadow Cat Rivers has made a number of the points I was going to, in regards to the necessity of demonstrating your power and difference in what characters have to lose, but there is a whole load of other factors here. In line with his critique of a feudal system, I believe we are meant to question what true justice would look like in this world. It should be no surprise that the man Arya kills for breaking his Night's Watch vow, following the example of her father - one of the few lords to take justice seriously, was the same person who was sent to the wall (if his account is to be believed) through an all to believable abberation of justice. Does being a boy born at the right time into the right family really qualify these lords for anything morally better than state sanctioned vengeance?

I don't feel George has some great point to this, (other than thank fuck Western civilisation has reached the point where this can be avoided most of the time) but is indicating that things are not as simple and nice solutions are not as attainable as you might like them to be. Basically, justice is elusive, but you can't blame a girl for trying.

[Anton Martell]

9 minutes ago, Horse of Kent said:

I feel GRRM's point about justice-revenge is a lot more nuanced that justice=good and revenge=bad. I don't want to go into it in great depth either, partly because it is such a lengthy topic and partly because Shadow Cat Rivers has made a number of the points I was going to, in regards to the necessity of demonstrating your power and difference in what characters have to lose, but there is a whole load of other factors here. In line with his critique of a feudal system, I believe we are meant to question what true justice would look like in this world. It should be no surprise that the man Arya kills for breaking his Night's Watch vow, following the example of her father - one of the few lords to take justice seriously, was the same person who was sent to the wall (if his account is to be believed) through an all to believable abberation of justice. Does being a boy born at the right time into the right family really qualify these lords for anything morally better than state sanctioned vengeance?

I don't feel George has some great point to this, (other than thank fuck Western civilisation has reached the point where this can be avoided most of the time) but is indicating that things are not as simple and nice solutions are not as attainable as you might like them to be. Basically, justice is elusive, but you can't blame a girl for trying.

Of course, I realize I seem very black or white in what I said, but I am sure it will be very nuanced. But to some degree, if you transpose ASOIAF theme to our world, I believe that that dumbed down takeaway is that justice is better than revenge. With both being probably imperfect (examples of miscarriage of justice in ASOIAF and the real world are plenty, and some revenge are succesful), and taking a specific toll on the one carrying it. It's not a benign matter. Justice isn't either (hence the Ned quote about doing the killing yourself when you condemn someone). But in the end, justice is what we have and it might be the "better of two evils" sort of speak. 

 

I hope I'm being clear :/

[chrisdaw]

It is apparent that ASOIAF is pro justice, pro law and anti mob rule and anti vengeance.

It's just that stories in general, and especially this one, have character arcs. Characters change, an author demonstrates a point through a character learning, growing and thus changing. Arya isn't going to continue down the path of vengeance forever, her trajectory is an arc, not a descent.

A straight descent is what Cat to Lady Stoneheart was and will continue to be. That path is not for Arya, it's for Arya to see and reject.

[Elisabetta Duò]

3 hours ago, DutchArya said:

I think you're discounting the first half of the what Jon said and that completely takes, the part you highlighted, out of context. 

An excellent summation by chrisdaw was done here: 

I disagree about the comic book line too. A very good case for the line about Ned telling Arya she would marry a King (which was also changed in the Show by d&d for obvious reasons) But unlike d&d, Daniel Abraham is friends with GRRM and listened to his warning. 

Yeah, I don't agree with any of this. But we'll see how right or wrong Ned ends up being.

What are your thoughts on Arya's direwolf being named Nymeria? It's been made clear in the text that these wolves were sent by the Old Gods and are deeply connected to their owners. The only Stark to name their direwolf after a real person - what, if any, significance will that have on Arya? 

Also, I see you think her ending up dead or "dead" in her wolf, which she will eventually completely faded away in... Seems like where her story arc is going? Seems a bit wasteful. Spending this much time on a character battling and being consumed by death while alive - to just then succumb to it? If anything, seeing her go on and live and face challenges in her life, with her experiences, would be a much better outcome and better storytelling overall. 

1) I actually saw that possibility…I answered you about that in the other thread about Ned's predictions (you asked me there), where I said that "the longer you hide youself = deny your Stark identity, the sterner the penance = you'll lose a part of yourself forever / become a stern assassin / die in the end' or something on that line, but to be honest, I fee like it's a bit of a stretch". 

As for the thread, I had read it time ago; I agree that the OP makes some sense (most of the following comments don't and lose themselves into details so much that they miss the picture - but that's my personal opinion), it's just that his statement doesn't prove she won't die /live in Nymeria: first of all it's debatable if it was a proper warning (it is only if the whole phrase is relevant and he made the punctuation ambiguous on purpose) and secondarily, even assuming Jon gave her a 'warning', we don't know if Arya has crossed that line already or not: maybe it's too late already for her to 100% be back, yes she has chosen to be a Stark, yes she will fight for her family, but maybe she won't be able to fit in anymore (it was already difficult for her before, now it would be more tricky), to adapt herself to the rules of society and to ordinary life…hence she will warg into Nymeria.

Also, there are other ways to 'hide herself': the faceless men/Stark identity is the most obvious and i agree the most likely, but just to make an example and play devil's advocate, for all we know, she might hide herself into Nymeria for some reason (useful to herself or to the war), until the point she is unable to come back (the longer you stay, the most difficult it is to come back..we have seen this with Bran many times), so that 'the longer you hide, the sternerr the penance' = If you hide into Nymeria for too long, you want come back.

2) Of course it might be that quote, all the Jon/Arya shippers suggest it is (if it turns out to be correct, then imo it's because GRRM thought us less smart than we proved to be, so his AGOT clues were much evident than the ones hidden in the following books…when he started to read the thread in the first forum, he realized and became more careful); I wouldn't particularly mind if she was queen in the north or queen of westeros, I wouldn't hate the notion in itself, but in all honesty I would be seriously, like s.e.r.i.o.u.s.l.y disappointed with GRRM if a couple of quotes expressly mentioning future queens foreshadowed the ending. Let's be honest, the first time we read the books, we all looked for that kind of quotes and jumped every time we saw 'king' or 'queen' in the texts. Yes, having it in a 'casual' conversation makes it 0.1% less obvious, but I'm seriously writing an email of complaint if it was just that simple, with that quote where Ned says it was Brandon supposed to father 'queens' ... Sansa queen because she was supposed to marry prince (then king) jeoffrey when GRRM wrote AGOT and Arya because she will marry Jon. Meh. Also, I wish Arya could be and do something different, not a lady/queen, mother and stuff.. because that's not what she wanted to be. Besides, ing the queen of westeros (to a small degree, the queen in the north), she wouldn't be able to be herself, being a queen means necessarily that you have responsabilities, you have to negotiate and smile to people you hate, you have dinners and marriages to organize, you need political skills she and Jon don't possess (especially as queen/king of westeros, Ned had no politicals skills and managed in the noth thanks to his name only),

3)) Nymeria is a warrior queen, everyone who read the books knows it and if GRRM thought we wouldn't look it up, he's mad. Again: if Arya's direwolf is named after Queen Nymeria because Arya will be Queen, it's so obvious I'm sueing, I want my money back. I didn't read 7.000 pages to get that the future warrior queen named her wolf after a warrior queen, it's hardly what I would call a twist. Again, if it turns out to be true, it may be a shock for the TV watchers, but he seriously underestimated his readers. Another more generic explanation would be that she just embodies a warrior and the queen bit is a red herring. Another even less obvious explanation would be that the direwolves have strong connections to their owners and Arya is 'the only Stark to name their direwolf after a real person' because she is the only Stark who will warg into her wolf without coming back, so that the direwolf will be a real person in the end. If there is the chance that Arya wargs into Nymeria, then she is named after a real person because she - and she only, out of the Stark dire wolves  - will be a real person, Nymeria/Arya. 

4) I guess Arya (or Arya through Nymeria) has a role to play into the upcoming war, so her role won't be just 'killer'. it all depends on how it all turns out to be. At the moment, Arya is a lone, lost Stark, as Nymeria is a lone, lost dire wolf: so if the show is to be believed, Jon and Arya, who are, the 'pack' (will Bran join them, maybe to reveal RLJ?) have more chances of survival than the 'lone' wolf. Of course, this might change if Arya meets up with Jon and Sansa. Also, there are a lot of main characters whose death is a 'waste', that's what bittersweet means.  

I also wondered why the last paragraph of the 1991 outline was blackened. It was just after the point where GRRM spoke about the 'deathly rivalry' between jon and tyrion for arya. Of course this didn't happen, but I had the feeling that it was blackened to hide that one of these 3 (or maybe even 2) will die, which would be relevant because GRRM said that the 5 main characters (Bran, Arya, Tyrion, Daenerys, Jon) will have the same ending he thought for them back in the days, even if maybe in a different way. Initially I put my two cents Tyrion dying because it would be a huge shock if he died, people would talk, etc. and because in 1996 GRRM called him the 'villain' and because it's easier to kill your fave character than your wife's (and he's my fave character :P),  now I think it might be any of them.

I still don't see her in King's Landing playing the queen, except for plot armor. I She and Jon are - differently from Sansa - true creatures of the North, so I could see Arya in Winterfell maybe, but in KL… I understand the author can do as he likes and justify anything, but still. In short, I would find it obvious (if it isn't it's because people didn't pay attention reading) and I would be truly dissappointed, so I prefer to believe there is more.

 

[Anton Martell]

1 hour ago, chrisdaw said:

It is apparent that ASOIAF is pro justice, pro law and anti mob rule and anti vengeance.

It's just that stories in general, and especially this one, have character arcs. Characters change, an author demonstrates a point through a character learning, growing and thus changing. Arya isn't going to continue down the path of vengeance forever, her trajectory is an arc, not a descent.

A straight descent is what Cat to Lady Stoneheart was and will continue to be. That path is not for Arya, it's for Arya to see and reject.

I agree, but I think she will have a chance to not go down this path but will ultimately miss it. But I would be fine either way

1 hour ago, Elisabetta Duò said:

2) I would be seriously, like s.e.r.i.o.u.s.l.y disappointed with GRRM if a couple of quotes expressly mentioning future queens foreshadowed the ending. 

3) Nymeria is a warrior queen, everyone who read the books knows it and if GRRM thought we wouldn't look it up, he's mad. Again: if Arya's direwolf is named after Queen Nymeria because Arya will be Queen, it's so obvious I'm sueing, I want my money back. I didn't read 7.000 pages to get that the future warrior queen named her wolf after a warrior queen, it's hardly what I would call a twist. 

 

About 2): I agree, and I think it's a stretch so see her queen, but we'll see

 

3) I always thought she chose Nymeria as a name because she was a badass warrior and that it meant she was a tomboy and destined to fight and be a warrior. But if we stretch this we could also say that Nymeria cut all ties to her former land and built a new life somewhere. Maybe that's what will happen to Arya, but I don't think so (I'm not saying you are saying that though)