Jump to content

Where is the love?


Recommended Posts

 

15 hours ago, Aderyn said:

 

I agree with both of these so much. Real love is there in the books for everyone to see. Love is not the romanticised, idealistic concept that we often like to see it as (especially in fiction). In real life, love is always mixed with other emotions, attitudes and ideas. Duty, passion, respect, jealousy, protection, fear, dedication, sadness, happiness, the desire to control each other and the will to be free from one another. Love is never just love, because in order to love someone you need to have a reason. And this is also why love is not all that there is to life (apart from when you have that first teenage crush, then it's bigger than life), it's connected to the everyday life and everything around us. GRRM really has done a great job in portraying this.

Thanks, yes people are very linear about their ideas as to what love is. And often they do not appreciate that their feelings about it might not match up with other peoples or the reality of human relationships.  And GRRM has done a wonderful job of portraying those human emotions in a wide varied manner.  

14 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Agreed. I really love both stories (Sansa/Sandor and Arya/Gendry) because of that. Also Jaime/Brienne is great.

I always love your take on sexuality. Yeah, Sansa is so working herself up sexually about Sandor, she's gonna jump him.

Rethinking Romance will continue, I just wanted more material to finish SanSan and J/B. Meanwhile, I put lots of SanSan stuff here.

Also he's got Beauty and the Beast parallels in Sansa/Sandor and Jaime/Brienne (I am waiting for more parallels, too):

  • Sandor is Sansa's Beast, Jaime is Brienne's Beast (they trade roles in that Brienne the Beauty is Beastly on the outside)
  • Joffrey was Sansa’s prince, Renly was Brienne’s prince
  • Both Beauties, Sansa and Brienne, receive roses from men they reject (Loras and Red Ronnet) in their thoughts and dreams for their respective Beasts, Sandor and Jaime
  • Florian and Jonquil and true knights come up with both Beauty and the Beast pairs, too
  • Sandor tells Sansa there no are true knights, Jaime tells Brienne there are no true knights; then both men are true knights
  • Both Beauty and the Beast pairs have key rescue scenes; Sandor rescues Sansa from rape, Jaime rescues Brienne from rape
  • Sansa thanks Sandor after the rescue, Brienne thanks Jaime after the rescue; both remember the rescues
  • There’s a sexy symbolic deflowering scene for both Beauty and the Beast pairs; Blackwater for Sansa/Sandor, the sword fight for Jaime/Brienne; both scenes are filled with sexual symbolism (both men pull daggers on the women)
  • Sansa thinks many times about Sandor’s cloak, and he gives it to her twice, and she keeps it in a cedar chest; Brienne dreams of the time Renly gave her the kingsguard cloak, but then she dreams of Jaime giving her the cloak instead
  • Both Beauty and the Beast pairs miss each other after they are separated ("I wish the Hound were here" and "Would that Jaime had come with me" and much more)

I was going to tag you into this thread. :) All great stuff as always Le Cygne.  Love the parallels between Braime and SanSan this is indeed a great B&TB telling by GRRM. He throws other stuff in for sure but at their cores both romances are B&TB. Which is apt as he is open about loving that story.  People often seem to forget that he is an unapologetic self-professed romantic when they cry how ASOIAF is not about love. He utilises both classic romance genre story structures and fairy tales when he constructs his love stories. Arya and Gendry, for instance, brings to mind the oft used trope of the childhood friends who are separated and when they meet again the tom boy got hot.  

23 hours ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

Well after the RW, she imagines finding the the BwB again and riding along side Gendry as an outlaw like Wenda the White Fawn.  Oh, but that's stupid Sansa stuff right out of the stories :rolleyes: uh huh.  I agree, if she has an endgame with him I think it will be utilizing both their talents and values by defending the smallfolk.  She has acceptance that she has always longed for and a purpose that is fulfilling to her character.  

I don't think Sansa is any different. I think the story is clearly moving away from arranged marriages that uses either of them for their claims.  It didn't seem like it in the beginning, but both girls really have the willfulness to resist that fate.  

Oh yeah, they'll be way more alike in the end ;)   IMO, there's a possibility that Sansa's husband might take her family name to keep the next generation of Starks going.  "She's not a dog, she's a direwolf."  Wives taking the husband's last name is not automatic according to George.  IIRC, there is one precedent for the above happening, but I need to look it up.  Would be a rare event in the story of an outsider wanting to be a Stark and actually becomes one.           

I like what you found here.  switch she out to he and she's telling us that The Hound is not a Dog AKA a Clegane, he's a Direwolf AKA a Stark.  

Quote
Septa Mordane sniffed in disapproval. "A noble lady does not feed dogs at her table," she said, breaking off another piece of comb and letting the honey drip down onto her bread.
"She's not a dog, she's a direwolf," Sansa pointed out as Lady licked her fingers with a rough tongue. "Anyway, Father said we could keep them with us if we want."
The septa was not appeased. "You're a good girl, Sansa, but I do vow, when it comes to that creature you're as willful as your sister Arya." She scowled. "And where is Arya this morning?"
4

Which is apt as Septa Mordane has just told her that she's too high born to feed the dog at the table. Nice girls do not do that kind of thing. And she's as willful as her sister Arya when it comes to that creature. Which works very well for her being wilful when it comes to the Hound. And defying cultural expectations of what Lady like behaviour is by marrying him. And Sansa even thinks of the way Ladies rough tongue licks at her fingers as she takes the tit bit. Which can be read in the context of the quote being foreshadowing, as a sensuous act which she takes pleasure in. Which thematically works for Sansa as her themes are amongst others taking ownership of her own sexuality. And finding personal autonomy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Morgana Lannister said:

Okay, have been lurking in this thread for a while but there is so much material that I will have to come back to the original theme, but anyhow:

I agree with what you say in the first paragraph.  However, everyone seems to have forgotten that, despite a very different education, Gendry is the bastard son of Robert Baratheon!  

That is not that relevant. Gendry is still baseborn on his mother's side. And he has never been acknowledged by King Robert nor been legitimized. The fact that he resembles Robert doesn't mean this will come with any legal advantages, privileges, or titles.

Edric Storm might end up becoming a legitimized Baratheon because he has been acknowledged by Robert. But in Gendry's case powerful people would actually have to legitimize him on the basis of his looks alone. That's not likely to happen. Who should do that and why?

As to Arya - I can see her abandoning her murderous ways should she participate in the war against the Others. Personal revenge isn't all that important when humanity itself is threatened by extinction. However, somehow I don't see a 11-12-year-old playing a huge role in the war against the Others. The wights/Others won't care that she can change her face, right? And all her little tricks won't help her killing people that are already dead.

The tragedy in her character is that George cannot really sell us the idea that an adult Arya is going to become a nice and normal woman again. There is no proper psychological treatment for people like her in this world. And somehow I'm not that confident that Arya is going to talk to about her crimes and murders with her family members. Why should she do that? She would like a horrible serial killer...

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

I fully agree with the above. I couldn't have said it better. @Lord Varys is a known Stark hater and Dany fan who's interpretation of the texts are skewed in one direction. 

This is not about characters. It is about actions.

And I don't actually care that much about Daenerys as a person. I find her interesting because of the plot she has been given.

And I sure as hell condemn criminals for their crimes in fiction as well as in real life. But there are different rules in war than in peace times, right? You are allowed to kill people in war both in Martinworld and in our world. There are war crimes in the real world and there seem to be war crimes in Westeros, too (raping women, and murdering innocent women and children, for instance).

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

He argues that Arya had no right to kill Raff and Chiswyck (two despicable men), but of course if you ask him who gave Dany the right to kill hundreds of people to implement her views of right and wrong, he'd justify it through a biased, lengthy and convoluted post.

No. I already said it in this thread that Dany crucifying 163 Great Masters without a proper trial is problematic. She should conducted a trial or chosen the 163 guys herself. One could argue that she wanted to mimic the cruelty and arbitrariness of the actions of the Great Masters, though. They would have chosen the 163 slave children they crucified arbitrarily, too, most likely leaving the actual choices to their overseers. Now they have to choose who in their midst is going to be treated in the same fashion. By the standards of this world this has the air of poetic justice.

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

I fail to see how Dany defining what is right/wrong en masse for entire populations any different than Arya doing it on a smaller scale. If you think one is wrong you can't justify the other. Dany dispenses justice arbitrarily as queen of Meereen. But don't expect LV to diss his silver haired tyranical princess. 

Monarchs are the law in this world and society. They make right. Do I like that? No. I'm not living in a medieval monarchy nor am I a monarchist.

What I'm pointing out here is that Arya has no right whatsoever to murder anyone by the rules of the world and society she lives in. And I sure as hell find the idea of an 11-year-old girl killing people with her own hands despicable. I'd never defend any person doing that because, you know, even if I agree that the men Arya kills may deserve to die by the rules of the society she is living in (I'm against the death penalty, of course), I don't think Arya should not be made to kill them by the circumstances/author.

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

And as you said, Arya is probably one of the most empathetic characters in the books. Her only questionable kill so far (which wasn't motivated by revenge or survival) has been Dareon. Oddly everyone goes on about how she killed Dareon but no one bothers to state how she saved Sam from Terro and Orbello or how she let Sam have the clams for free. People easily forget the kindness and humanity she shows but harp on her kills. Yes, Arya has done some disturbing things and her obsession with death is troubling but she's a traumatized child who's trying to adapt and survive in a brutal world the only way she knows how. I don't believe GRRM will keep her with the Faceless Men much longer. She'll regain her Stark identity and her pack and will eventually come to terms with her brutal past.

Her 'Stark identity' is what made her kill Dareon. Her Stark identity is what makes her want to kill Cersei.

Arya is done with friendships and real empathy since the Red Wedding. She makes no true friends after that. Not on the ship and certainly not in Braavos. She feigns closeness with the various people she meets as Cat, etc. but she fakes it all. She doesn't allow anyone to get really close to her because, you know, she plays a role there. Cat is a role in a play, she isn't real. And neither are the relationships Cat has with other people. If Arya was still herself she would have gotten closer to Sam, right?

But even if Arya was this great empathic girl with all her many friends and people she met that still doesn't justify her cold-blooded murders. And anyone doing that is despicable in my opinion because you could use the same shitty line of argument if your own spouse or son happens to be a serial killer. 'Yeah, he may have killed a bunch of people but he was always nice to his friends and family members.' Nobody is forcing the family of a murderer to no longer like him or her but they sure as hell have no right to justify his or her actions.

You can like Arya - I do, too - but you should not justify her actions. Especially not if you like her. Nobody liking Arya can want her to become the creature she has become. Just as nobody likes his or her child to become an Arya-like person.

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

So by your interpretation/defintion Arya killing Dareon is okay but her killing Raff and Chiswyck is not because they weren't declared outlaws by the authorities.

No, killing Dareon is also not okay because the man is only an outlaw in Westeros (or to be more precise only the Seven Kingdoms, although the NW would also kill him would they catch him beyond the Wall). The authorities of Braavos would punish anyone presuming to kill a person living in their city who has never committed a crime there, never mind who they are. If some Stark showed up there and killed Dareon as an oathbreaker openly in front of witnesses they would be punished as murderers are punished in Braavos.

Vice versa, any murderer of a Braavosi person living peacefully in Winterfell would be executed by the Starks if he or she were caught red-handed by the Stark guardsmen at Winterfell.

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

Now which authority would that be? They were both Gregor's men who Ned as Hand had declared an outlaw, so by extension his men were outlaws too.

Eddard Stark was deposed as Hand and replaced by Tywin Lannister, remember? Whatever he decreed became meaningless after that. Gregor and his people were criminals for a short time but were then pardoned by the Iron Throne. And they are still part of the group that (sort of) won the war. They could all be tried and executed when the war is truly over (and the Lannisters are done). But killing them under Kings Joffrey and Tommen remains a crime.

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

But the whole point is moot cause I don't know how you came up with the idea that an outlaw can be killed by anyone. I don't think it works that way. Lords and nobles who are given the responsibility to dispense justice are the ones with the right to execute a condemned man and not just any outlaw. If as you say anyone can kill and an outlaw, I wonder why the person(s) who captured Gared did not kill him right away and instead waited for Ned to come and pronounce judgement and execute him.

Can you perhaps spare a couple of minutes to research a specific legal concept. It is not that hard, you know:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

George gives no indication that his outlaws are different from what that word usually means.

The reason why Gared, the wildlings/outlaws in the Wolfswood, etc. are usually only killed by the lords is that those men are dangerous and the average peasant is not all that likely to challenge or attack an armed and dangerous criminal.

In addition, we know that the Starks usually do all the killing on their land. And the Stark people would know that. If some dude captures a deserter of the NW (or some other outlaw) alive on the Stark lands they send word to Winterfell.

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

Arya killing Raff and Chiswyck is the same as Dany killing Mirri or the slavers or anyone else she saw as an enemy. Just because she has an army and three dragons does not make her killings any less murderous than Arya's.

See above. Daenerys doesn't kill anyone with her own hands, nor is she just a little girl. She is the last of her house and recognized as the rightful Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men by friends and foes alike. Arya neither sees herself as the rightful Lady of Winterfell/Queen in the North nor as a person dispensing justice in the name of House Stark. She just kills the people she wants to kill. And she has no plan or agenda besides that. Dany wants to abolish slavery in Essos. What's Arya's political agenda? For what reason does she have to kill the people she kills?

The execution of Mirri Maz Duur also doesn't sound that problematic to me. Dany was an authority among the Dothraki - the khaleesi of Khal Drogo - and Mirri did harm both Khal Drogo as well as Khal Drogo's unborn child in the process of 'helping Dany'.

The difference between Dany and Arya is that Arya has no right to kill the people she killed while Daenerys has. Arya has no army, no title, no agenda, no political power. And that sure as hell makes a difference because it is very much the difference between being a legal authority and a vigilante. People with crowns and titles can wage wars and dispense justice in this world, just people running governments in our world can do the same thing, too. 

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

So according to you Arya does not have the right to kill Raff and Chiswyck although they are horrible people because they are not outlaws. So by that logic, Dany does not have the right to kill the slavers cause they are not outlaws either. They are respectable, law abiding citizens in their socities. Just because they are terrible people, Dany has no right to kill them, right?

Meereen was conquered by Daenerys. She defines what's right and wrong there now. Do I think the way she handled the slavers was just? No. She should have given them some sort of proper trial. Or she should have killed them all. Only that is going to abolish slavery once and for all. 

If Dany had no right to crucify the slavers then the Allies also had no right to sit in judgment over the German leadership after World War II. You are aware that there were laws establishing racial purity and dehumanizing Jews in Germany, right? That soldiers obeyed orders of the state when they butchered Soviet politicians in the east? This was all proper procedure. In Germany German laws apply, not the laws of some other country. But this no longer matters if you declare war on other nations and lose that war, right?

Meereen and Daenerys were at war, Dany won, and subsequently she dispensed justice as she saw fit. Just as the Great Masters would have dealt with Dany and her people had they won the war.

But there is no indication whatsoever that it is okay for little girls without any legal authorities, armies, etc. in this world to murder people on the basis of their own moral standard. Such people are murderers. If you justify that kind of behavior in fiction one wonders whether you think I have the right in reality to arrange the death of a boss like Weese, too? What do you think about that? This man was an asshole, but as far as we know he never killed anyone. He beat and abused his people, yes, but that doesn't mean he deserved to be killed by his own dog because Arya Stark willed it, or does it?

5 hours ago, teej6 said:

Arya is a vigilante who's taking revenge on those who wronged her and who she sees as bad, and Dany is a tyrant who kills her enemies and those she deems evil. You can't condemn one and justify the other.

Dany being 'a tyrant' doesn't justify Arya's actions. And I sure as hell have no reason to talk about Daenerys or any other character when talking about Arya's actions. They have nothing to do with each other.

But if we do it is quite clear that are differences there. If you are the head of state of a country and I'm a citizen of the land you declared war upon and your soldiers kill me you are not a murderer. But I'm still dead, and there will never be justice for that.

War involves the suspension of 'normal peace justice' - and that's still true in reality although we try to trick us into believing that it is different. But it most definitely was this way during war in a medieval setting.

Arya murders her people usually not in war. Not in Harrenhal, and not in Braavos. I don't fault her all that much for her part in the inn. That was self-defense for a huge part.

And even if we assume Arya leaves the Faceless Men soon to return to Westeros to continue to kill the people on her list (which I don't) - this wouldn't mean she is doing the right or even a good thing. She would most likely kill all those people (and perhaps others) in a similar fashion as she killed Raff. And that's just disgusting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

Which is apt as Septa Mordane has just told her that she's too high born to feed the dog at the table. Nice girls do not do that kind of thing. And she's as willful as her sister Arya when it comes to that creature. Which works very well for her being wilful when it comes to the Hound. And defying cultural expectations of what Lady like behaviour is by marrying him. And Sansa even thinks of the way Ladies rough tongue licks at her fingers as she takes the tit bit. Which can be read in the context of the quote being foreshadowing, as a sensuous act which she takes pleasure in. Which thematically works for Sansa as her themes are amongst others taking ownership of her own sexuality. And finding personal autonomy. 

Paying attention to the animals in this story adds lots of dimensions. TWE captures a couple of things here, Sansa going against convention by standing up to Septa Mordane and disobeying her about her pet, and the emphasis GRRM puts on the sensual feel of the animal's tongue.  Sansa losing later losing Lady and then having dogs show up at various times could be important bits about her future.  She likes dogs and through them she acts out missing the Hound.  

While not all the animals are tied into love stories, they still can point to important aspects of their owners.  Stanger kicks the walls of his stall down and bites the brothers; he won't let them geld him, he won't settle down into mundane farm work and it's getting time to leave.   This points to the gravedigger's time on the QI as coming to an end.  Not to mention Septon Meribald tells us that when discussing confessions with the EB, that when Dog barked "Even Dog was bored."  

Sam and Jon and their interactions with the ravens.  Sam gets to know the ravens working with them at CB, and then they help Sam and Gilly survive against a wight attack so they can meetup with Coldhands.  The raven's are full of cryptic messages for Jon and of course, Jon's relationship with Ghost.  Doesn't Ghost like both Yrgitte and Val?

Arya wargs with both Nymeria and the cats.  Arya chasing Nymeria away was tough breakup for a little girl, but she saw the necessity.  But still the bond remains.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if one wants to know where is the love in this story, another character worth looking at is Jon.  Jon's story with Yrgitte and the budding love story with Val are romances as well.  Both add to the overall book and both make Jon a more interesting character.  Ghost makes his liking for Val apparent, and I like the chapters that include Jon and Val because it's subtle and slow, but there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys So let me get this straight, I am not justifying Arya playing judge and executioner, but I can also see why she does what she does, and unlike you, I don't think she's so far gone or lacks any humanity. She still has her humanity and and still can be empathetic to strangers, yes even after the Red Wedding. That's why I brought up the Sam example.  

Your argument is that Arya is a 11-year girl killing people with her own hands while Dany "doesn't kill anyone with her own hands, nor is she just a little girl. She is the last of her house and recognized as the rightful Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men by friends and foes alike" makes no sense whatsoever. Firstly, killing with your own hands or ordering others to kill while watching on is still killing;  secondly did the Westerosi Lords make Dany their "rightful" queen? No,they didn't. She titled herself queen after she acquired an army through deceit. As for her right to kill the 163 masters, she did it soon after conquering the city, without giving them a trial. She was exacting vengence not implementing justice. But even if you allow Dany those kills because she conquered the city and was exacting her form of justice, you still have the Masters at Astapor. She killed them en masse on what grounds? And that too every man above the age of 12 who wears a tokar, which would probably be the major portion of the free male population of Astapor. The good masters in Astapor were terrible people but was Dany their queen to mete out justice to them? No, she wanted to take/save the Unsullied and kill people she didn't like so she killed the Masters. As to your comparison about allies killing Nazi soldiers and Dany killing the Masters, they are not the same. The allies had laws (yes their own laws but laws nonetheless), functioning courts, and proper trials before they executed people. They didn't walk into Germany and round up random soldiers and kill them. Bad analogy on your part. 

And I brought up Dany because you're double standards are so transparent. You are quick to brand Arya a mindless murderer but Dany's killings are fine by you. On this thread itself, you say both Dany should have given the Masters a trial but then again she has the right to murder them. Which is it? And I'm sure on several Dany threads you've bended over backwards to justify her killings. You keep moving the goal post whenever it suits your argument. The simple fact is that the killing of the Masters in Astapor and Meereen are also murders make no mistake about that. They were not justice or implementing the law of the land but rather arbitrary killings by a conquerer who did it out of anger and vengence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

@Lord Varys So let me get this straight I am not justifying Arya playing judge and executioner but I can see why she does it and unlike you, I don't think she's so far gone or lacks any humanity. She still has her humanity and and still can be empathetic to strangers, yes even after the Red Wedding. That's why I brought up the Sam example.  

Psychopaths are humans, too. They are even more excused for being murderers than non-psychopaths because their brain works differently than the brains of 'normal people'. Facing the fact that Arya is a psychopathic murderer doesn't mean there is no humanity in her.

Being nice to some stranger doesn't mean you are particularly empathetic, though. I'm not very empathetic either but I'm rather nice to strangers because it is easily done and I get a good feeling from doing so. If you are nice to others others are nice to you, too. What Arya lacks is empathy for the people she kills. There is nothing of this sort - nothing at all - in the Mercy chapter. The way she deals with Raff is simply horrible, and I'm pretty sure the details about the Dareon murder (assuming we ever get those) are equally unpleasant. You can already see what a cold fish Arya is back at Harrenhal:

Quote

She made no effort to hide, but approached the guard openly, as if Lord Bolton himself had sent her. He watched her come, curious as to what might bring a page here at this black hour. When she got closer, she saw that he was a northman, very tall and thin, huddled in a ragged fur cloak. That was bad. She might have been able to trick a Frey or one of the Brave Companions, but the Dreadfort men had served Roose Bolton their whole life, and they knew him better than she did. If I tell him I am Arya Stark and command him to stand aside . . . No, she dare not. He was a northman, but not a Winterfell man. He belonged to Roose Bolton.
When she reached him she pushed back her cloak so he would see the flayed man on her breast. “Lord Bolton sent me.”
“At this hour? Why for?”
She could see the gleam of steel under the fur, and she did not know if she was strong enough to drive the point of the dagger through chainmail. His throat, it must be his throat, but he’s too tall, I’ll never reach it. For a moment she did not know what to say. For a moment she was a little girl again, and scared, and the rain on her face felt like tears.
“He told me to give all his guards a silver piece, for their good service.” The words seemed to come out of nowhere.
“Silver, you say?” He did not believe her, but he wanted to; silver was silver, after all. “Give it over, then.”
Her fingers dug down beneath her tunic and came out clutching the coin Jaqen had given her. In the dark the iron could pass for tarnished silver. She held it out . . . and let it slip through her fingers.
Cursing her softly, the man went to a knee to grope for the coin in the dirt, and there was his neck right in front of her. Arya slid her dagger out and drew it across his throat, as smooth as summer silk. His blood covered her hands in a hot gush and he tried to shout but there was blood in his mouth as well.
“Valar morghulis,” she whispered as he died.
When he stopped moving, she picked up the coin. Outside the walls of Harrenhal, a wolf howled long and loud. She lifted the bar, set it aside, and pulled open the heavy oak door. By the time Hot Pie and Gendry came up with the horses, the rain was falling hard. “You killed him!” Hot Pie gasped.
“What did you think I would do?” Her fingers were sticky with blood, and the smell was making her mare skittish. It’s no matter, she thought, swinging up into the saddle. The rain will wash them clean again.

That kind of behavior is just disgusting.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Your argument is that Arya is a 11-year girl killing people with her own hands while Dany "doesn't kill anyone with her own hands, nor is she just a little girl. She is the last of her house and recognized as the rightful Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men by friends and foes alike" makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, it does. In this world lords and monarchs are set apart from other people. They have special rights and special powers. Arya is none of that.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Firstly, killing with your own hands or ordering others to kill while watching on is still killing.

No, it is actually not. A murderer is a murderer when he or she actually murders somebody. If you command or incite somebody to murder another person you are guilty of a crime, too, but you are less guilty than the person who actually does the deed. 

And it sure as hell makes a huge difference on the psychological development and makeup of a young girl whether she actually kills with her own hands or not. You must be aware of this. We all kill people in computer games and the like but we don't kill real people. Somebody signing death sentences or commanding atrocities he or she does not personally participate in also can have an impact on your personality and character, of course, but it is not the same as actually killing people.

The real dehumanized thugs in Germany weren't Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Goebbels, etc. but the men and women serving in the concentration camps. They actually murdered and tortured people in the millions, and the overwhelming majority of them went back home after the war and were never punished for anything they did.

Hitler never even visited a concentration camp and Himmler had a breakdown during one of his rare visits.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Secondly did the Westerosi Lords make Dany their "rightful" queen? No they didn't. She titled herself queen after she aquired an army through deceit.

The lords of Westeros have no voice in deciding who is their rightful monarch. This is not a democracy. And they all acknowledge that the Targaryens are their rightful rulers. You know that as much as I do. Nobody ever said that Viserys III or Daenerys ever lost their claims to the Iron Throne for good because Robert won a war.

And, no, Dany already sees herself as the rightful Queen of Westeros after her brother dies in AGoT. She doesn't need an army to make that claim, just as Viserys III never needed an army to make it clear that he was the rightful king.

And, no, not every person who feels like it can declare that he or she is the rightful monarch of this or that kingdom. People who lack the blood are laughed and ridiculed if they try something of that sort. People who have the blood are accepted as pretenders.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

As for her right to kill the 163 masters, she did it soon after conquering the city and without giving them a trial. She was exacting vengence not implementing justice.

Well, I'm not sure Dany was obliged to grant them trials. I'd have preferred it but can you give me any internal reason why a conquering queen in Martinworld should be forced to obey any other laws but her own?

And I sure as hell am aware that Dany is avenging the 163 crucified slave children there. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, do you?

And by the way - if you find Daenerys as worse or even worse than Arya than please give me textual evidence where Arya actually regrets what she did. Where does she regret having Chiswyck and Weese killed? Where does she regret the murder of the Northman? Where does she regret the murders of Dareon, the insurance guy, and Raff?

Daenerys regrets the treatment of the 163 crucified slavers after the fact.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

But even if you allow Dany those kills because she conquered the city and was exacting her form of justice, you still have the Masters at Astapor. She killed them en masse on what grounds? And that too ever man above the age of 12 who wears a tokar, which would probably be the major portion of the male population of Astapor. The good masters in Astapor were terrible people but was Dany their queen to mete out justice to them? No, she wanted to take/save the Unsullied and kill people she didn't like so she killed the Masters.

That certainly was not nice of her but she only turned on them after the deal was over, using their own slave soldiers against them. It was unpleasant but if you deal in weapons you risk being killed by weapons. And we can all agree that these people and their lifestyle need to go. Thanks to this kind of thing hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people are abused, castrated, indoctrinated, killed, enslaved, etc. over generations.

How many young people were actually killed because they wore tokars isn't clear because we don't know how many people actually wear tokars in the Ghiscari cities. Every person owning slaves? Or just the wealthy/elite? If we see this whole thing as punishment for practicing slavery with impunity - and that's how Dany sees it - every person owning slaves is guilty.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

As to your comparison about allies killing Nazi soldiers and Dany killing the Masters, they are not the same. The allies had laws (yes their own laws but laws nonetheless), functioning courts, and proper trials before they executed people. They didn't walk into Germany and round up random soldiers and kill them. Bad analogy on your part.

They presumed to sit in judgment over people who were following their own laws and the commands of their rulers. The fact that they used modern trials, etc. has to do with the fact that this took place in 20th century not in 12-13th. Back then some king would have decided on a whim what to do with those people, just as Daenerys does with the Ghiscari.

The point is that we actually agree that you can treat a defeated nation/city in this fashion, but by our standards as well as in Martinworld. And as a king or conqueror in a medieval setting you can basically do whatever you want if you have defeated an enemy. It would be commendable if you treat them nicely but nobody has the right to tell you you have to.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

And I brought up Dany because you're double standards are so transparent. You are quick to brand Arya a mindless murderer but Dany's killings are fine.

I never said Arya is a mindless murderer. I said she is a psychopathic murderer and I stand by that because I actually know what that means.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

On this thread itself, you say both Dany should have given the Masters a trial but then again she has the right to murder them. Which is it?

I, personally, think she should have given them a trial, yes. But it is also quite clear that this is not 'murder' because it is done by a victorious conqueror as a result of war. You can execute people with or without proper trial, you know. And it is only a crime/murder if you were obliged to give the people that are killed a trial. On what grounds do you demand that Daenerys should have given those men a trial?

The difference to Arya is obvious. She is murdering people with impunity in peaceful settings, luring them into traps to murder them when they are weakest or poisoning them. That is murder by definition.

9 minutes ago, teej6 said:

And I'm sure on several Dany threads you've bended over backwards to justify her killings. And the killing of the Masters in Astapor and Meereen are also murders make no mistake about that. They were not justice or implementing the law of the land but rather arbitrary killings by a conquerer who did it out of anger and vengence. 

That is the right of a conqueror. A conqueror in a world where people actually still attack neighboring states can round up and kill people arbitrarily and not-so-arbitrarily - as Daenerys does it. You know, those slavers are guilty of dreadful crimes collectively, both by Daenerys' and by our standards.

Slavery is not going to go away if you ignore it or accept it as the laws and customs of another land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Gendry has seen her kill, knows she killed, and he doesn't care. He's also seen her rescue hardened criminals, he would never have rescued, or insist on giving a dying man in a cage a drink. Meanwhile he himself has got no problems delivering unsuspecting visitors of the inn to the BwB and LS. Sounds to me that some readers are simply projecting their "oughts" onto characters, while ignoring what the text is telling us about these characters.

Thank you!

On another note (and I've seen this come up before) is that Arya is not capable of having attractions because of her age.  Uh, Sansa at about 8 or 9 thought Waymar Royce (who was in his mid teens) was dreamy.  Bran at the same age has a little puppy love crush on 16 year old Meera. It's all very cute and innocent.  This isn't abnormal.  I distinctly remember being in that age group and having discussions with classmates about who we thought was cute.  Remember passing these notes in class:  Do you like me?  Check yes or no.  ^_^ Just because it's not the more overtly romantic or sexual attraction of teenagers and adults, doesn't mean it doesn't count as a legitimate attraction or desire for for someone to reciprocate the feeling.  Even if it's just hand-holding or playing together.  I do like how George has captured being at an age where you're hovering between knowing things and not knowing things.  Arya is mostly a very practical, no-nonsense person, so she wouldn't really express attraction with blatant heart-eyes like her sister.  I think it's pretty obvious she takes notice of Gendry physically nonetheless.  

Quote

"She's not alone." Gendry rode out from behind the cottage wall, and behind him Hot Pie, leading her horse. In his chainmail shirt with a sword in his hand, Gendry looked almost a man grown, and dangerous. Hot Pie looked like Hot Pie. "Do like she says, and leave us be," warned Gendry.

Quote

The walls rang with the sound of hammers, and burly men in leather aprons stood sweating in the sullen heat as they bent over bellows and anvils. When she spied Gendry, his bare chest was slick with sweat, but the blue eyes under the heavy black hair had the stubborn look she remembered. Arya didn't know that she even wanted to talk to him.

Quote

As she passed the armory, Arya heard the ring of a hammer. A deep orange glow shone through the high windows. She climbed to the roof and peeked down. Gendry was beating out a breastplate. When he worked, nothing existed for him but metal, bellows, fire. The hammer was like part of his arm. She watched the play of muscles in his chest and listened to the steel music he made. He's strong, she thought. As he took up the long-handled tongs to dip the breastplate into the quenching trough, Arya slithered through the window and leapt down to the floor beside him

Twice she's taken a good look at his bare chest.  Both times she's not looked at him that way face to face, but from afar and secretly to herself. The above is especially described in pretty sensual terms.  Gendry looks exactly like young Robert, so I think we can safely say he's a very conventionally attractive guy.  Her actions and unfiltered thoughts betray her, no matter what she says out loud or gives deliberate thought to.

3 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

I like what you found here.  switch she out to he and she's telling us that The Hound is not a Dog AKA a Clegane, he's a Direwolf AKA a Stark

Right.  We're constantly getting a juxtaposition of dogs and wolves.  Dogs are descended from wolves.  Sandor himself in physical description and in his values just seems like a displaced Northman living in a southron world.  I also think house Clegane as a holdfast is gone.  Gregor's dead.  Sandor left Lannister service for good.  It's a house of nightmares anyway.  It hasn't really been gotten around to, but the Lannister's are within their rights to reclaim it and give it to another vassal.  Plus Gregor really made the name so infamous and hated throughout Westeros, there's nothing Sandor could really do to change that.  It's been nothing but a stigma for him, even if he has pride in what his grandfather did.  I think he would be better suited to taking the Stark name and becoming a direwolf.  And I found the precedent for it.  Joffrey Lannister, born Joffrey Lydden.  Married King Gerold III Lannister's daughter and took her name when House Lannister had no male issue.  House Lannister was about to go extinct.  Very interestingly this was also a case of a knight, Ser Joffrey, who married a princess and became King of the Westerlands.  Not saying that's what I think will exactly happen in a Sansan endgame, but I'm just pointing out it's rare but pairings like this can happen.  George tends to give us some sort of historic parallel so when rare events happen, it's not out of left field completely.  It's within the "rules" of the canon.            

3 hours ago, The Weirwoods Eyes said:

And Sansa even thinks of the way Ladies rough tongue licks at her fingers as she takes the tit bit. Which can be read in the context of the quote being foreshadowing, as a sensuous act which she takes pleasure in.

A few times she's licked / kissed by a dog or wolf.  

Quote

Sansa couldn't help but smile a little. The kennelmaster once told her that an animal takes after its master. She gave Lady a quick little hug. Lady licked her cheek. Sansa giggled. 

Quote

It was eight long days until Lysa Arryn arrived. On five of them it rained, while Sansa sat bored and restless by the fire, beside the old blind dog. He was too sick and toothless to walk guard with Bryen anymore, and mostly all he did was sleep, but when she patted him he whined and licked her hand, and after that they were fast friends.

The dog is certainly a parallel with Sandor's state of mind while he's in Arya's arc.  He's certainly regretful of leaving her and looking for ways to get back to her.  Hmmmm.  Might have to amend some of my essay.  Bryen / Byron.  Bryen's "sleeping dog."  Kiss / lick on the hand.  Byron's kiss on the hand.      

Quote

Sansa found Bryen's old blind dog in her little alcove beneath the steps, and lay down next to him. He woke and licked her face. "You sad old hound," she said, ruffling his fur.

 The same dog she will wish were Lady, her wolf, after she awakens from an erotic dream where Tyrion is replaced by Sandor in the marriage bed.  He "devours" her with his eyes which is the very definition of being "wolfish."  So by wishing the dog were her wolf, dream of the marriage bed, it might be a foreshadowing of turning the Dog into a Direwolf through marriage.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

So slavery is a hideous institution that Dany has the right to tackle by any means possible (not going to disagree with that), but Arya is morally obliged to remain in a forced labour camp and get mutilated by Vargo Hoat?

The Baratheons are not the rightful rulers of Westeros despite conquering it, but Dany is the rightful ruler of Meereen because she conquered it?

Dany thinks (erroneously) she is the last of her house and acts accordingly and is therefore justified, but Arya thinks (erroneously) she is the last of her house and acts accordingly and is therefore a psychopath?

Your hypocrisy is laughable.

 

PS. I’m not sure saying Dany is more comparable to Hitler and Arya more to the prison guards is exactly helping your case.

Arya only feigns closeness to the people she meets now? Yeah right: “She missed the friends she'd had when she was Cat of the Canals; Old Brusco with his bad back, his daughters Talea and Brea, the mummers from the Ship, Merry and her whores at the Happy Port, all the other rogues and wharfside scum.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Raff is a textbook case of a carefully planned and coldblooded murder. You cannot get much worse than that. And Dareon is so hideous because from Arya's POV Jon, for instance, would deserve to die, too, if she caught him beyond the Wall fucking Ygritte. Not to mention that we don't yet know how she did it and how cruel and painful it was for him.

Actually,

her killing of Raff was not carefully planned, it was done on the spur of the moment, and somewhat in the heat of passion, although I am botherede by the ease with which she does it.  

 As to Dareon, I got the impression that he was killed because of his betrayal of Sam (whom she liked) and his arrogance about the whole thing.  The fact that he was a deserter was a hook she used to justify it in her own mind.  And if the murder is like the others, she likely slit his throat before he even knew what was happening.  That seems to be pretty much her MO.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Bolton guardsman wasn't 'self-defense'. It was cold-blooded murder. The killings in the inn are somewhat okay, considering that she had to defend herself, but the frenzy she worked herself when butchering the Tickler shows her true colors. And even more so her refusal to kill Sandor. That is perhaps the cruelest thing she did so far, giving in to hatred to such a degree that she wants a dying man to suffer even more.

Harrenh was not a a safe place for her, especially with Vargo Hoat in charge.  From her viewpoint, killing the Bolton guard was a necessary expedient to leaving.  Had there been another way, I expect she would have taken it.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think she will leave. I think she'll get a mission from the Faceless Men either in Essos (killing Daenerys, a scenario I'd very much prefer) or return to Westeros to take out Stannis' enemies (Aegon and his gang). The chances that she can leave the Faceless Men are about zero. Especially since they seem to have plans of their own, plans that might lead Arya to reconnect with the main characters.

I doubt she is going to stay.  For one thing, if GRRM was planning on having her be an actual assassin, she would be a lot further along in her training than she is, given the time constraints on the rest of the story.  And I think her actions in the preview chapter will show the FM that she is a loose cannon who is unlikely to adhere to their ideology and rules.  I expect they will push her out while retaining ties to her.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As to Arya - I can see her abandoning her murderous ways should she participate in the war against the Others. Personal revenge isn't all that important when humanity itself is threatened by extinction. However, somehow I don't see a 11-12-year-old playing a huge role in the war against the Others. The wights/Others won't care that she can change her face, right? And all her little tricks won't help her killing people that are already dead.

She has a big wolfpack that she might be able to have some control over.  GRRM has said it is going to come into play.  It would make sense for Arya to use it against the Others.  I expect that they could be useful against wights.

I expect that removal from FM influence would be helpful as well.  

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Arya is done with friendships and real empathy since the Red Wedding. She makes no true friends after that. Not on the ship and certainly not in Braavos. She feigns closeness with the various people she meets as Cat, etc. but she fakes it all. She doesn't allow anyone to get really close to her because, you know, she plays a role there. Cat is a role in a play, she isn't real. And neither are the relationships Cat has with other people. If Arya was still herself she would have gotten closer to Sam, right?

But even if Arya was this great empathic girl with all her many friends and people she met that still doesn't justify her cold-blooded murders. And anyone doing that is despicable in my opinion because you could use the same shitty line of argument if your own spouse or son happens to be a serial killer. 'Yeah, he may have killed a bunch of people but he was always nice to his friends and family members.' Nobody is forcing the family of a murderer to no longer like him or her but they sure as hell have no right to justify his or her actions.

You can like Arya - I do, too - but you should not justify her actions. Especially not if you like her. Nobody liking Arya can want her to become the creature she has become. Just as nobody likes his or her child to become an Arya-like person.

I am not at all convinced of this.  I think, if anything, she has too much empathy at times, leading to seek vengeance against those who harm people that she likes.  She didn't get close to Sam because she didn't really have the opportunity to do so.  He left Braavos shortly after they met.

As an Arya fan, I do agree with you on justifying her actions.  I admit they trouble me - but I still consider her a better person than any of the main Lannisters, for example.  But she is also the one character that I can think of who could fall of my favorites list because of her actions.  She is rapidly approaching a precipice - I hope she avoids it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gendry got himeslf captured, leading Arya to get herself captured. After that he found a tolerable position in Harrenhal and gave no crap for Arya's own circumastances. Then afte ahe saved him from a situation where he would have lost life or limb, he chose to join the group that were holding her hostage for ransom. I don't see why Arya would have any positive memories from Gendry. He never lived up to what Arya offered him and refused her friendship and protection, because of his inferiority complex.

Meanwhile Arya has moved on and has had to deal with far more important issues than Gendry like the loss of her entire family and home and hasn't given him a thought since. He doesn't deserve any. He was callous, sullen and disloyal to her and any guilt he might have felt since is his own problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

So slavery is a hideous institution that Dany has the right to tackle by any means possible (not going to disagree with that), but Arya is morally obliged to remain in a forced labour camp and get mutilated by Vargo Hoat?

The Baratheons are not the rightful rulers of Westeros despite conquering it, but Dany is the rightful ruler of Meereen because she conquered it?

Dany thinks (erroneously) she is the last of her house and acts accordingly and is therefore justified, but Arya thinks (erroneously) she is the last of her house and acts accordingly and is therefore a psychopath?

Your hypocrisy is laughable.

 

PS. I’m not sure saying Dany is more comparable to Hitler and Arya more to the prison guards is exactly helping your case.

Arya only feigns closeness to the people she meets now? Yeah right: “She missed the friends she'd had when she was Cat of the Canals; Old Brusco with his bad back, his daughters Talea and Brea, the mummers from the Ship, Merry and her whores at the Happy Port, all the other rogues and wharfside scum.”

All excellent questions. Awaiting eagerly for the replies.

And @Lord Varys, we know how Arya killed Dareon, from her own lips. And no, there's no reason to doubt it since it fits perfectly w/ what we know.

AFfC, Cat of the Canals

“Just so,” said the kindly man. “And the third thing?”
This time she did not hesitate. “Dareon is dead. The black singer who was sleeping at the HappyPort. He was really a deserter from the Night’s Watch. Someone slit his throat and pushed him into a canal, but they kept his boots.”                                                                                                        

“Good boots are hard to find.”
“Just so.” She tried to keep her face still.
Who could have done this thing, I wonder?”
Arya of House Stark.” She watched his eyes, his mouth, the muscles of his jaw.”

 

Wonky formatting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Also, if one wants to know where is the love in this story, another character worth looking at is Jon.  Jon's story with Yrgitte and the budding love story with Val are romances as well.  Both add to the overall book and both make Jon a more interesting character.  Ghost makes his liking for Val apparent, and I like the chapters that include Jon and Val because it's subtle and slow, but there.

Ygritte and Val were mentioned before starting here I believe.  It just got a little buried in the thread.  But if you have more to add to these guys, please do!  

It would be nice if we could steer this thread back to discussing love in the series and away from who is the bigger murderer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

Ygritte and Val were mentioned before starting here I believe.  It just got a little buried in the thread.  But if you have more to add to these guys, please do!  

It would be nice if we could steer this thread back to discussing love in the series and away from who is the bigger murderer...

Getting back to the OP:  The reason we don't see more happy, loving couples (and families) is that they aren't usually the subject of stories, unless it is to break them up, as with the Starks.  I am sure that there are plenty of happy couples and familis (or would be, if it were a real place), they just aren't who the story is about.

I would say that Ned and Catelyn were a happy couple, as were Tywin and Joanna.  Roslin seems to love Edmure, so that pairing has some hope for it.  I also think Jeyne Westerling and Robb were genuinely in love as well, and Jeyne still is.

I would like to see Sansa and Arya fall in love, although I really don't see Sandor or Gendry, respectively, as good partners for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

Ygritte and Val were mentioned before starting here I believe.  It just got a little buried in the thread.  But if you have more to add to these guys, please do!  

It would be nice if we could steer this thread back to discussing love in the series and away from who is the bigger murderer...

This thread is off topic and derailed by LV on a subject that's been discussed on hundreds of threads.  Please don't feed the troll and get back to discussing the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

So slavery is a hideous institution that Dany has the right to tackle by any means possible (not going to disagree with that), but Arya is morally obliged to remain in a forced labour camp and get mutilated by Vargo Hoat?

That is just special pleading on your part. Would you think I'm justified killing innocent people because I fear being stuck in an unpleasant situation? Most likely not. Arya made her bed herself. She could have told the Northmen at Harrenhal who she was. She could have fucking told Roose. If he had learned who she was before Stannis lost on the Blackwater he would have returned her to Robb, most likely, especially if other Northmen had learned the truth, too.

You can like the fact that Arya was able to flee but the kind of justification you give here for cold-blooded murder - 'she had not other choice' - is just nonsense. You always have a choice.

And we do not know that Hoat would have mutilated Arya, right? After all, she is the weasel girl, right? If she could survive under Roose she may also have been able to survive under Hoat.

1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

The Baratheons are not the rightful rulers of Westeros despite conquering it, but Dany is the rightful ruler of Meereen because she conquered it?

 

Nobody talks about rightfulness here. We are talking about factual power. Robert could do whatever he wanted to to the populace of KL and the members of the court and the royal family he captured just as Dany could do whatever she wanted to the Meereenese.

However, if you want to talk 'rightfulness' then Daenerys Targaryen did indeed properly conquer Meereen (even the Meereenese agree with that in ADwD, right?) whereas Robert is just a bloody usurper who rose against his rightful king and usurped his place. I will repeat myself here:

Yes, the rebels had a right to defend themselves against the tyranny of Aerys II. No, Robert had no right to make himself king instead of Viserys III.

1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

Dany thinks (erroneously) she is the last of her house and acts accordingly and is therefore justified, but Arya thinks (erroneously) she is the last of her house and acts accordingly and is therefore a psychopath?

Can you give me any piece of textual evidence where Arya sees or presents herself as the last scion of House Stark intending to avenge that house on its enemies? No? I thought as much. Because there aren't any such quotes in the books.

Daenerys is the heiress and successor of the rightful Targaryen king of Westeros. All of Westeros acknowledges that. But if Daenerys Targaryen were running around killing people on a whim (who may or may not deserve it) she wouldn't get her throne and whatever authorities are there in Westeros would hang her for this.

1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

Your hypocrisy is laughable.

Nope, it is not.

1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

PS. I’m not sure saying Dany is more comparable to Hitler and Arya more to the prison guards is exactly helping your case.

The point there is that I actually do consider people executing orders to abuse, brutalize, rape, torture, and kill people more disgusting than men ordering them to do such things. Ordering them is not that hard. Doing such things is hard if you are a normal human being. And you should answer for that. Pointing to the guy at the top of the chain of command helps you to find a scapegoat. But the sad fact is that nobody was forced to work in a concentration camp. Nor was anybody forced to take the house, job, goods, business, etc. of a neighbor who 'disappeared'. 

But we are getting off track here.

Arya clearly has been more twisted than Daenerys or any other POV character aside from Theon. 

1 hour ago, Horse of Kent said:

Arya only feigns closeness to the people she meets now? Yeah right: “She missed the friends she'd had when she was Cat of the Canals; Old Brusco with his bad back, his daughters Talea and Brea, the mummers from the Ship, Merry and her whores at the Happy Port, all the other rogues and wharfside scum.”

She misses them because she enjoyed the life as Cat. She wasn't as close to them as she was to Gendry and Hot Pie or her earlier friends and family. And we can be pretty certain that she cares even less about the gang at the theater. That is very obvious from the way her chapter is written.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Actually,

  Hide contents

her killing of Raff was not carefully planned, it was done on the spur of the moment, and somewhat in the heat of passion, although I am botherede by the ease with which she does it.  

 

Well, I'd say it is meticulously planned on the spot. She figures out how to lure him into a trap and then very effectively kills him. She has everything under control, from beginning to end, even the display of her own emotions. She is really very good at killing people.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

 As to Dareon, I got the impression that he was killed because of his betrayal of Sam (whom she liked) and his arrogance about the whole thing.  The fact that he was a deserter was a hook she used to justify it in her own mind.  And if the murder is like the others, she likely slit his throat before he even knew what was happening.  That seems to be pretty much her MO.

We don't know the details yet. I only brought that up because it is strangely resemblant of the absence of details we got for the murder of Shae back in ASoS (for the record - I do like Tyrion as a character but I'd have no problem if he was hanged for that murder). It may be that we'll get more details on the Dareon thing later in the books, especially if he is ever brought up again later in the story (by Sam or Jon, who trained with Dareon and most certainly didn't want him dead). It was before the insurance guy and Raff, after all. Before she received a lot of additional training in the House of Black and White. Could have been messier.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

Harrenh was not a a safe place for her, especially with Vargo Hoat in charge.  From her viewpoint, killing the Bolton guard was a necessary expedient to leaving.  Had there been another way, I expect she would have taken it.

See above. That kind of thing doesn't justify a murder.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

I doubt she is going to stay.  For one thing, if GRRM was planning on having her be an actual assassin, she would be a lot further along in her training than she is, given the time constraints on the rest of the story.  And I think her actions in the preview chapter will show the FM that she is a loose cannon who is unlikely to adhere to their ideology and rules.  I expect they will push her out while retaining ties to her.

The Faceless Men would kill her. She knows too much now. It is not that likely that they will allow her to leave.

And there is a lot of plot-related stuff she has to learn yet. She has to learn that the Faceless Men caused the Doom of Valyria. She also has to learn the magic allowing you to wear another face (as of yet she merely given another's face). And she has to learn about what the Faceless Men are about in this war in Westeros. They have a man - Jaqen - in the Citadel of Oldtown. What is he doing there? Why is he after this book that seems to explain how to kill a dragon (I assume that's the interesting part in a book titled 'The Death of the Dragons')?

If I had to guess we'll see Jaqen-Pate retrieve this book in the Samwell chapters of TWoW. He returns to Braavos around the same time as Arya joins the House of Black and White officially. Around the same time the deal with Stannis is finalized after the Tycho Nestoris returns to Braavos and a new Sealord is chosen. Then Braavos itself will take part in the larger war, and I think the Braavosi fear of the dragons and a reborn Valyria will triumph over the common sense that Dany fighting against slavery should actually make them allies. And Arya and Jaqen (or only Arya) will set out to kill Dany at Volantis or on the Stepstones.

Alternatively she could go to Westeros to take out Stannis' other enemies.

I think Arya needs something positive she could fight for. Something like helping Dany to end slavery. Her decision not to remain an assassin should actually come when she refuses to kill somebody important.

If she simply returned to Westeros to kill people her story would be effectively over once she leaves Braavos. She has to do more than that. She still can hook up with her family at a later point in the story.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

She has a big wolfpack that she might be able to have some control over.  GRRM has said it is going to come into play.  It would make sense for Arya to use it against the Others.  I expect that they could be useful against wights.

Wolves can become wights, too. I expect those wolves to come into play when Catelyn and the Riverlords take the Twins and butcher the Freys. Arya can control Nymeria without actually being present physically. That's why she is learning to be a skinchanger right now.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

I expect that removal from FM influence would be helpful as well.

As of yet I've little trouble with their philosophy. Most if not all of the clients who come to the House of Black and White have pretty good reasons to want people dead. However, if it turns out that the Faceless Men have their own agenda (say, because they are a majority shareholder of the Iron Bank) then things might get more complicated and interesting. Arya is not going to like it if they have a double standard. But still - if Jaqen returned to her she would most likely go along with it for the time being.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

I am not at all convinced of this.  I think, if anything, she has too much empathy at times, leading to seek vengeance against those who harm people that she likes.  She didn't get close to Sam because she didn't really have the opportunity to do so.  He left Braavos shortly after they met.

You can have not a lot of empathy and still care about vengeance. That's not mutually exclusive. But, yeah, she still cares about other people up to a point. However, that's actually something the Faceless Men all do. Most of the work revolves around showing compassion to people who want to die.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

As an Arya fan, I do agree with you on justifying her actions.  I admit they trouble me - but I still consider her a better person than any of the main Lannisters, for example.  But she is also the one character that I can think of who could fall of my favorites list because of her actions.  She is rapidly approaching a precipice - I hope she avoids it.

I'm not sure George is writing a story involving precipices and points of no return (aside from the ones we all know). You see that with Tyrion. He is very much depressed after the double murder he commits, but he slowly recovers. They might still come back to haunt him just as others do.

Arya is not going to reach a point where she will have to turn back or be utterly destroyed. It is rather that she will have to find other goals in life than killing people. Helping Daenerys to free the slaves and save the world could be such a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Arya is not going to reach a point where she will have to turn back or be utterly destroyed. It is rather that she will have to find other goals in life than killing people. Helping Daenerys to free the slaves and save the world could be such a thing. 

On that we can agree!:D  Although I doubt it will be helping Daenerys in Essos.  Otherwise I fear that our views of Arya's story are so different as to be essentially incompatible.  And since we have gone way OT I will call it a day and retire from the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed Jon and Yrgitte's love story because it was a story of how two very different people from different cultures could come together.  Because of these differences, and the fact that Jon basically was living a lie and he fully intended to return to the Wall and NW, but had to keep that secret, created 'the conflict in the human heart' which the author wanted to portray.  While Ygritte's death was a bit cliché, it did give the arc a clean ending.  

With that experience under his belt Jon cautioned Sam about Sam's growing feelings for Gilly, and then threw them together for a trip far away from CB and the NW vows.  Sam soon had to deal with some of the guilt and confusion Jon did when was involved with Ygritte.  Both women, at least for a time with Ygritte, seemed to feel that they were wives of their crow.  Ygritte because she was 'stolen' by Jon and then chose him as well, and Gilly because she chose Sam "I am your wife" she said just before the first time they made love and Sam answered "Yes."  We don't yet know how the Sam and Gilly pairing will be resolved, hopefully GRRM will avoid another cliché death of the woman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

Ygritte and Val were mentioned before starting here I believe.  It just got a little buried in the thread.  But if you have more to add to these guys, please do!  

It would be nice if we could steer this thread back to discussing love in the series and away from who is the bigger murderer...

It would make a lot of sense for that to actually discuss love of the people that actually do love each other rather than discuss possible future romances.

56 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I would say that Ned and Catelyn were a happy couple, as were Tywin and Joanna.  Roslin seems to love Edmure, so that pairing has some hope for it.  I also think Jeyne Westerling and Robb were genuinely in love as well, and Jeyne still is.

Tywin loved Joanna very much. Whether Joanna loved Tywin back in kind is as of yet unclear. Ned and Cat were a happy couple but it is this sort of weird love that grows out of an arranged marriage. I'm not sure how this is supposed to work, actually. I can imagine growing fond of a spouse I've not chosen for myself just as I could imagine sexually desiring such a person if she happens to be my type on our first marriage (not seldom the wedding day, as was apparently more or less the case with Ned and Cat). But I cannot imagine falling deeply in love with a person to whom I'm attracted and with whom I've little in common. Ned and Cat later have their children to care for (and worry about) so they have something in common, I guess.

Jaime and Cersei also have a long-lasting and sort of happy relationship. They seem to be the only couple which is still very passionate about each other almost thirty years after they began their sexual relationship.

But in general George seems to focus more on passionate (and short-lived) romances and affairs than on relationship that last. We have that with Doran-Mellario (who pretty much seem to be how Rhaegar and Lyanna would have ended had they had the time), Rhaegar-Lyanna, Robert's passion for Lyanna, Loras-Renly.

A very interesting relationship seems to be Duncan-Jenny. Prince Duncan must have been a very remarkable man considering that he did not only force the world to accept his marriage but stuck with it his entire life. We don't know whether they had some crises later on, but if they did they did got through those. The other great historical love - Jaehaerys-Alysanne - got more than a few cracks in TWoIaF, so we have to wait and see.

Quote

I would like to see Sansa and Arya fall in love, although I really don't see Sandor or Gendry, respectively, as good partners for them.

Most certainly not. But I must say, I don't read a lot of pages about realistically depicted crushes among children nor anything about pedo sex.

Reading long lists of quotes containing hints and foreshadowing about Sandor-Sansa, Arya-Gendry, or any other future romances is much less interesting than wondering what an Arya-Gendry or Sandor-Sansa romance could actually add to the plot of the overall story? Under what (boring) general circumstances would Arya-Gendry make sense? How could that work? How bad things would things have to be for Sansa for her to actually want to be with Sandor? What future can Dany-Daario/Hizdahr or Jon-Ygritte/Val hope to have within the scope of that story?

If you ask that such things quickly disappear. And especially Ygritte/Val and Daario/Hizdahr show how quickly love interests can appear literally out of thin air. And they are rather likely to disappear just as quickly once their role in the story is over. In that sense I'd expect that Arya's love interest (assuming she gets any) would be a new character, too. Just as Sansa has right now gotten Harrold Hardyng to play with. And Littlefinger, of course. The chances that this relationship is eventually going to be consummated is not unlikely at all.

The only thing in that department I find interesting is Bran having sex in animal and human form. Hodor-Bran could sleep with Meera, for instance. Bran's rather early sexual awakening might have to do with the fact that he is merging with various animals more and more, not to mention Hodor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The only thing in that department I find interesting is Bran having sex in animal and human form. Hodor-Bran could sleep with Meera, for instance. Bran's rather early sexual awakening might have to do with the fact that he is merging with various animals more and more, not to mention Hodor.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here... Is it Bran's feelings for Meera? Because I fail to see what's sexual there. Like, at all. That's a very sweet puppy love a boy who is 10/11 and has gone though all the things Bran has gone through develops for an older girl he sees as a hero in a way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here... Is it Bran's feelings for Meera? Because I fail to see what's sexual there. Like, at all. That's a very sweet puppy love a boy who is 10/11 and has gone though all the things Bran has gone through develops for an older girl he sees as a hero in a way.  

Sex is discussed in Bran's chapters on occasion, he even witness some of the Winterfell folk having sex during the harvest feast. And he knows he'll never have children. This is an issue for him.

We learn from Haggon via Varamyr's Prologue that having sex as an animal is an abomination. Well, it is still interesting and something skinchanger is going to try out. And Bran is especially dangerous in that regard because he is such a young child who is willing to explore and investigate things that interest him, especially if he can be sure that nobody looks. That's why he takes over Hodor as often as he does. Right now he only wants to be with and close to Meera but we have to wait and see how that continues.

In addition, the boy will soon carry the weight of the world on his shoulders, knowing about/witnessing countless of (doomed) love stories in the past, watching generations of Starks being born, living their lives, having sex, and growing old. Whatever innocence he has left will disappear very quickly. Just imagine what it would do to you to know what Bran will soon know.

If Bran developed the ability to take over the bodies of humans far away (not sure if that's going to work) he could even indulge himself there in various ways. He would most likely do that kind of thing to help in the fight against the Others but you can combine business and pleasure, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...