Jump to content

Syrio Forel =/= Jaquen


Clumber

Recommended Posts

The issue is being falsely accused of clinging to a possibility that Syrio = Jaquen, simply because we think Syrio is "cool" and wanting him to live, when the possibility if true means there is no Syrio. And you are wrong that any coolness would transfer to Jaqen because there is no Jaqen either. There is no Alchemist. There is no longer any Pate. There is just a FM, who can appear cool or lame as hell (see Pate) depending on need.

Sigh. It doesn't matter. Jaqen H'ghar or the alchemist or a Faceless Man; the entity exists and that is enough.

So you agree it is illogical, which was my point, which would mean I am correct? Then why did you begin your post saying "that's not correct at all?" Maybe I am missing the point.

Quite. I am saying you aren't thinking things through. Even if you were correct -- and you are not -- people would ignore any such logic purely because of infatuation. It happens all the time.

In your opinion. Which I disagree with.

Fact, not opinion. I said there is almost no grounds for Syrio to be alive. I didn't say absolutely none; while I am quite certain he didn't survive, there's always a possibility that he did. But the entire scene was written with the indication that he died, and with George's comment that people should be able to draw their own conclusions, the answer should be obvious--though that is opinion rather than fact.

Here's a quote from GRRM that I believe is quite relevant in this situation (from last year, I believe): "Tolkien made the wrong choice when he brought Gandalf back. Screw Gandalf. He had a great death and the characters should have had to go on without him."

Here's another (from 2003): "I've been killing characters my entire career, maybe I'm just a bloody minded bastard, I don't know, (but) when my characters are in danger, I want you to be afraid to turn the page (and to do that) you need to show right from the beginning that you're playing for keeps."

So, my thoughts, with apologies to George for stealing his words: Screw Syrio. He had a great death, and Arya should have to go on without him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quote from GRRM that I believe is quite relevant in this situation (from last year, I believe): "Tolkien made the wrong choice when he brought Gandalf back. Screw Gandalf. He had a great death and the characters should have had to go on without him."

Here's another (from 2003): "I've been killing characters my entire career, maybe I'm just a bloody minded bastard, I don't know, (but) when my characters are in danger, I want you to be afraid to turn the page (and to do that) you need to show right from the beginning that you're playing for keeps."

So, my thoughts, with apologies to George for stealing his words: Screw Syrio. He had a great death, and Arya should have to go on without him.

The problem with using this to 'prove' that Syrio is dead is that GRRM didn't follow his own advice to Tolkien. Gregor had a 'great death' at the duel with the Viper, Catelyn Stark had a 'great death' at the shocking Red Wedding. Sandor had a 'great death' begging Arya for mercy. Lord Beric? Can't count how many 'great deaths' he had. Yet, we've now got Sandor the Gravedigger, Gregorstein, Lady Stoneheart and for quite a long time after his great death(s), a sentient Lord Beric. So this 'rule' of GRRM's doesn't logically apply only when one is arguing the Syrio-is-dead case, but not in any of these other instances. GRRM didn't 'play for keeps' with Gregor, Sandor, Catelyn or Beric, so its still up in the air whether he did so with Syrio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, the emperor in star wars did not die. Oh sure we seen him in a circumstance where death was 95% sure. But he's a sith damnit. For all we know he could have floated at the bottom when he was pulled over and is just biding his time. We didn't see him die!

:D

Just an aside, but the Emperor in Star Wars actually didn't die. He was recloned and came back again to menace Luke and his rag-tag band of rebels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with using this to 'prove' that Syrio is dead is that GRRM didn't follow his own advice to Tolkien. Gregor had a 'great death' at the duel with the Viper, Catelyn Stark had a 'great death' at the shocking Red Wedding. Sandor had a 'great death' begging Arya for mercy. Lord Beric? Can't count how many 'great deaths' he had. Yet, we've now got Sandor the Gravedigger, Gregorstein, Lady Stoneheart and for quite a long time after his great death(s), a sentient Lord Beric. So this 'rule' of GRRM's doesn't logically apply only when one is arguing the Syrio-is-dead case, but not in any of these other instances. GRRM didn't 'play for keeps' with Gregor, Sandor, Catelyn or Beric, so its still up in the air whether he did so with Syrio.

Ungregor is yet to be disclosed.

Uncat is not cat in the slightest, at all. You could debate that Gandalf wasn't really Gandalf, but it's nowhere near the same that Uncat is like. Uncat is ruthless, without remorse, there's really nothing but revenge left. Gandalf came back not as his loveable self, but still a character for good. Look at what Uncat does to Brienne.

Sandor was not dead. Sandor was left dying. The storyline explains what happened. Big difference from being left for dead compared to actually being dead.

Beric, this character has really had no significant impact upon the storyline compared to Gandalf.

Theres one key element that keeps these characters together though. The book actually mentions hints and subtle clues to them actually being alive.

Uncat, Beric, Sandor, All have been mentioned in the same book or next book. We are now in Book 5 without a mention or link to Syrio being Jaqen or Syrio being alive.

Syrio was killed from book one. There's no good clues to link Syrio/Jaqen together, only speculation on the fans part because the link is with Arya and both speak with a Braavos style. Others fit together perfectly and raise only a few questions, Syrio being alive or Syrio being Jaqen raises more questions with the theories presented.

I like Syrio, and while I'm sure he's 90% dead I won't rule out a plausible theory that he is indeed alive. Only no one can come up with a theory thats too far winded thats more imagination than it is linked with clues in the book.

This is the big difference when comparing them. It's why we can take Gregorstein/Uncat etc for granted and why we can only question theories on Syrio being alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an aside, but the Emperor in Star Wars actually didn't die. He was recloned and came back again to menace Luke and his rag-tag band of rebels.

Well I'm going by the movie since I'm not really a Star Wars fan. I think it's decent but I've never been caught up in it.

In the movie is what I said.

I cannot tell you what happened after that since I've never paid attention.

My point was however that just because you do not outright see someone die does not give conclusive proof that someone is not dead. Given the setting of Syrios supposed death and the circumstances as I gave about regarding Syrio it is very unlikely that Syrio survived. Even in the off chance that he did he should have cropped up by now. He was a good character, with a lot of actual character in the book, but of no real importance, and despite GRRM giving non important characters 2nd chances we are awaiting the 5th book without a mention of Syrio.

What I'm meaning is fans are clutching to straws and wild theories to make it possible that Syrio survived, instead of GRRMs' usual way of leaving subtle clues/hints in the book in which we can refer to make it possible that Syrio survived.

If you took away the Braavos speech between the characters I gaurantee you the whole Jaqen=Syrio debate would NEVER even be here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was however that just because you do not outright see someone die does not give conclusive proof that someone is not dead.

I agree. It does mean there is no conclusive proof that someone is dead, however. It's actually the opposite. It allows people to at least consider the possibility a character is not in fact dead, and how that can be. Until, of course, people swoop in and try to shut down the conversation by falsely accusing people of being Syrio fanboys, or saying this issue has been already discussed and therefore somehow "decided," or whatever.

Given the setting of Syrios supposed death and the circumstances as I gave about regarding Syrio it is very unlikely that Syrio survived.

In your opinion. Which some people disagree with.

Even in the off chance that he did he should have cropped up by now. He was a good character, with a lot of actual character in the book, but of no real importance, and despite GRRM giving non important characters 2nd chances we are awaiting the 5th book without a mention of Syrio.

GRRM is in for the long haul. I'm sure there are seeds planted in the first book that won't take flower until the last. And, I never really understood in the first place this objection to Syrio = Jaqen, based on the observation that we haven't seen Syrio for three and a half books so he must be dead. If the theory is true, it's not like GRRM abandoned Syrio and it will be lame if Syrio pops up again after five or six books. The entire theory posits that "Syrio" was the first appearance of the FM who has been appearing throughout the series. He even gets the very last line in the most recent book. Syrio = Jaqen is a theory that to date gives this singular FM the very last word! He's been under our nose the whole time. I don't ever expect Syrio to come back if the theory is true. If the theory is true, the FM will acknowledge or someone will figure out that the FM once played Syrio. Syrio's absence is wholly consistent with the theory, in fact it is necessary for the theory to work. If Syrio pops up somewhere when we know the FM (currently Pate in Oldtown) is somewhere else, then clearly the FM theory falls.

What I'm meaning is fans are clutching to straws and wild theories to make it possible that Syrio survived, instead of GRRMs' usual way of leaving subtle clues/hints in the book in which we can refer to make it possible that Syrio survived.

Syrio = Jaqen as a theory is entirely based on suble clues and hints. We never see Syrio dead (hint!). We never see anyone who would have reason to know he is dead acknowledge he is dead (hint!). Arya is the only one who speculates he is dead leading us to think he is dead, and she knows as much about it as we do -- that is, nothing, she didn't see him die or see a corpse (hint!). We don't know what happened to his supposed corpse, because there has been no acknowlegement at all that there even is a corpse (hint!).

As for Jaqen, we don't know where he came from. We don't know why he was arrested. We don't know who arrested him. We don't know when he was arrested. We don't even know the crime he was accused of before being arrested. We don't know how long he was in King's Landing before being arrested. We don't know why he got thrown into the Black Cells instead of the other levels. We don't know how long he was in the Black Cells.

Call it suble clues and hints if you want, but the fact is Syrio disappeared into nowhere, and Jaqen appeared out of nowhere, as far as GRRM's writing is concerned it fits into his pattern of clues. That's why the theory lives. Some readers think Syrio fell to an obvious death, but GRRM did not actually show a death. Some readers think Jaqen springs full forth as a fully developed character with a reason to be in the Black Cells when Ned is choosing Wall recruits, but GRRM supplies us nothing of his backstory, even how he got to be there.

If you took away the Braavos speech between the characters I gaurantee you the whole Jaqen=Syrio debate would NEVER even be here.

That has never been one of the reasons I'm willing to entertain Syrio = Jaqen. The Faceless Man who may be both would be skilled enough to mimic any accent convincingly (as we see with FM playing Pate), so that doesn't really support the theory at all.

This gets to what I think is a misunderstanding by those who reject the theory. If the theory is true there is no Syrio. And there is no Jaqen, and no alchemist and no Pate after he is murdered and replaced by the FM. There is only an FM. People reject the theory because they think Syrio must be exactly who he seems to be, or that Jaqen must be exactly who he seems to be, up until the time he completely proves he isn't who he seems to be by becoming someone else.

So if you think the theory cannot be true because Syrio would never do this, or do that, or prevail against Trant at the end, remember that the theory is he's not actually Syrio. Or if you think that Syrio was this way and Jaqen was that way, so they can't be the same person, if an FM was behind them both there is no Syrio and no Jaqen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with using this to 'prove' that Syrio is dead is that GRRM didn't follow his own advice to Tolkien. Gregor had a 'great death' at the duel with the Viper, Catelyn Stark had a 'great death' at the shocking Red Wedding. Sandor had a 'great death' begging Arya for mercy. Lord Beric? Can't count how many 'great deaths' he had. Yet, we've now got Sandor the Gravedigger, Gregorstein, Lady Stoneheart and for quite a long time after his great death(s), a sentient Lord Beric. So this 'rule' of GRRM's doesn't logically apply only when one is arguing the Syrio-is-dead case, but not in any of these other instances. GRRM didn't 'play for keeps' with Gregor, Sandor, Catelyn or Beric, so its still up in the air whether he did so with Syrio.

Not a single one of your examples even close to fit GRRM's "rule", so they do not apply. Gregor Clegane is assumed by many to be an undead monster now, true -- but he wasn't undead before. Monster, yeah, but not undead. Besides, we haven't seen him yet. (I'm not even certain we ever saw him die.)

Catelyn's case is similar. Lady Stoneheart is not truly Catelyn any longer... she is an undead monster. Not surprising, giving what happened to her.

The Hound is dead and won't come back. (Sandor could be alive.)

As for Beric Dondarrion... in case you didn't notice, he's dead.

Gandalf came back to guide the Fellowship -- essentially precisely the same role as he had before, with fancy new clothes. What was the point of him dying in the first place, then? That is what GRRM objects to; the story doesn't move along! People accused Robert Jordan of doing the same with his Forsaken. That is not what GRRM is doing. If he brings someone back, he makes certain that it matters -- that it changes them, fundamentally. Beric forgot his past and eventually died a permanent death. Catelyn is a monster. Sandor, if he is alive, is a monk on the Quiet Isle. We haven't seen Gregor yet.

Of course I'm mostly talking out of my rear here; I don't have any greater knowledge of GRRM's motivations than you do -- but it is what I believe.

Syrio Forel is just not important in the greater scheme of the story. He was a massive influence on Arya, but his physical presence isn't needed any longer. He's essentially a perfect character to dispose of permanently at this point -- to, as GRRM put it, show he's playing for keeps.

Also, uh, what exactly do you consider a "great death"? I'd consider Catelyn's death, and Gregor's, and Sandor's, rather undignified. Catelyn was murdered at the Red Wedding after she became insane from watching what she thought was the last of her children be slaughtered in front of her eyes. Gregor suffered the Viper's poison for days, if not weeks before succumbing. Sandor was left alone to die of an infected wound, denied even the mercy of a quick death.

Beric's could be thought of as "great" -- sacrificing himself to revive Catelyn, after a fashion -- but the others? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumping in and complaining about what people say in other threads really isnt doing alot for the people trying to enjoy this conversation..... so SHEMY, if noone here on this thread said anything about Not seeing syrio die means he's alive, and noone said anything about the braavosi accent..... why bring it up? stick to the thread, read the whole thing or go to the thread that has these points of discussion and complain there.

Neither of those make any sense, just like none of the arguments claiming Syrio can't possibly be alive. No , its not likely but it certainly makes a lot of sense as to why GRRM didnt let us see him die, and why we get no confirmation from those he was fighting that he died, and when we find out it is syrio , we will probably find out he was initially a FM sent to arya who new something about her destiny, Perhaps he was already syrio, most likely he "became" syrio after Ned hired him.......as a way to get close to arya and start her training...... farfetched but you have no factual evidence to deny any of it so stop hating and find a thread you can enjoy....we like this one

And Szar your taking a small bite out a big picture to try and disprove the little gandalf and death side argument you guys got going.......and great doesnt mean honorable or noble.

something about Syrio, J'aquen and the alchemist character just seems similar, and i think this has a lot to do with people's notion they could be they same entity behind their faces, although i understand there are good points , like arguments against benjen = coldhands or 3EC, where people just want to see Syrio and Benjen again, so they make up places for them to fit without any factual catalyst.....for example, we have the description of J'aquen's new face with arya and it matches the alchemist's description, but there is nothing like this smoking gun anywhere in the Syrio and benjen theories....... who cares? its a book, your not going to run into Ser Ilyn Payne any time soon...

if im wrong about those points i made earlier against you Shemy here's an apology in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Szar, to quote your earlier post,

So, my thoughts, with apologies to George for stealing his words: Screw Syrio. He had a great death, and Arya should have to go on without him.

Syrio didn't have a great death in the books because we never saw him die. If you suppose he did die a great death, you are just making it up when it comes down to it.

No one with a PoV witnessed him die, and we don't even have a PoV who would be in a place to know the truth state he was dead after the fact, or have someone tell any PoV that Syrio is dead, or have any PoV later overhear or figure out Syrio is dead, even based on scanty evidence or unreliable hearsay. No one in place where we expected him to die (save Arya) or in place to hear later that he died entertained a belief, a guess or even a rumor that he was dead as far as GRRM has revealed what happened.

Arya assumed he died, but she ran away at the very same time we as readers lost track of him, when he was very much alive. We left him in dire straits, sure, but no worse than Arya getting hit in the head by an axe or Brienne screaming out a word just before she dies. Plus, it just might be that Syrio was in less danger than we think; he might have been more than simply the Braavos Sword he pretended to be.

Arya doesn't know any better than we do whether or not he had a great death. He just might have had a great escape (or, I suppose he could have wet his pants and begged for his life before being killed as a coward; point is we don't know because we didn't actually see him die). As far as Arya herself or we the reader know, nothing any other character has done or said precludes the possibility he escaped death, especially if this 9 year old girl didn't really get the full measure of the man in her PoV. And the very fact that GRRM has been so coy about avoiding any further details about Syrio's supposed last moments (beyond the scene where Syrio's interference with Trant is mentioned but his death is quite explicitly not mentioned) is why some of this think this is a viable theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry HAIRY but you make no sense, nothing i can do about that

:rolleyes:

I won't continue discussing. I'll just ask: would you take a bet? At which odds?

WHy cant people who havent read those over analyzed , dissected threads just talk about this stuff on our own for a while. It seems like some of the vets imply we are wasting their time by talking about something they have already discussed in full before.

Investigating about something that has been widely researched in the past without caring for the data already gathered or the conclusios reached? Yeah, it's a waste of time. In any field, be it astrophysics or fantasy books theoretics.

Or worse, when a veteran member simply posts a link to a previous thread. There's still so much I want to discuss about these books--to discuss, mind you, not simply to read or to be lectured to by self-appointed 'experts.'

If you start a thread about a matter, it's my understanding that you are interested on it. If someone links to an already existing discussion about it, I can't se why you shouldn't be grateful. Read it, and if your point of view is not reflected in it, reopen the isssue again.

This is a community that's been functioning for many, many years, before you or me joined in. A downside of it is that most of the subject you might be able to think of have already been discussed. Andyou'll find plenty of people who know about the books much more than you (you could call them experts, if you wish). That's how it is. Now, if you want to have fun discussing fresh ideas with people who haven't thought about them before, perhaps this isn't the best place...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right its late and there are some epic posts here, but after reading the first page I just want to point out that even though topics have been discussed many many times over. It does not mean that they are resolved. Usually people just get sick of them an move on and it takes a new poster to come along and reignite the zeal for either proponent.

In the end, all we really are discussing our personal beliefs/ideas with each other because we know that other posters have read the stories and know whats going on. Its like "Hey, today I saved a kitten from a tree". No one really cares, but I want to tell someone so I go to a forum dedicated to kittens because they care the most. Same applies here and to AsoIaF theories, if you think of it today, you're not gonna go digging through 48 pages of posts just to see if its been discussed (a quick search is handy but not always fruitful) which brings us to posts like this. No one said we all had to come in and read it, and its pretty clear in the heading what its about.

As you all were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right its late and there are some epic posts here, but after reading the first page I just want to point out that even though topics have been discussed many many times over. It does not mean that they are resolved. Usually people just get sick of them an move on and it takes a new poster to come along and reignite the zeal for either proponent.

This is very true. However, where there are recent threads discussing the same topic, it is perfectly in order for someone to link to them and ask that people read through them before posting. Repetition for the sake of hearing your own (metaphorical) voice is really a waste of everyone's time. If someone wrote a lengthy post last month analysing the arguments about the timing of Yoren's collection of the prisoners from the Black Cells, and a link to that is provided, then the only reason to go through it again is if you have a genuinely new angle. Doing it just because you want to post your analysis, even if it only repeats the foregoing one, is simply egocentric and kind of rude. So the Official Line, as it were, is that it's discouraged.

On the other hand, even after all this time people do come up with genuinely new angles and we don't want to discourage that. And we're not necessarily anal about repetition either - if a topic was last discussed two years ago nobody expects you to have read it. The rule of thumb is, do a search. If you find a recent thread, read it first. If you think you have a new angle, go ahead. If you want to recap some points as part of that, go ahead. But if you're posting just for the sake of it, we'd rather you didn't.

Which, by the way, is the final word on that topic, thanks. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to Ser Monte, here's one summary of some of the most pertinent arguments about whether Trant killed Syrio (For Syrio=Jaqen, "Syrio" must have survived Trant's attack):

Contrary to the claims of the absolutists, there is substantial evidence set forth in the books in support of both sides of this issue.

Did Syrio survive? We don't know, but we know the following:

The Fight: Syrio was armed only with a stick, which a fully armored Trant had just cut off to some unknown residual length. So Syrio appeared to be in serious jeopardy of being beheaded or otherwise killed by said fully armored Trant.

We know that Trant is alive, so Syrio did not kill Trant.

However, in acknowledging to Cersei that he had failed to capture Arya due to a delay caused by "the dancing master," Trant omitted any mention of having been unfortunately forced to kill said dancing master, which mention might have impressed upon Cersei the seriousness of the interference and thus helped alleviate her natural annoyance at him for losing Arya. Such absence of information isn't proof of anything, but Trant's silence is less surprising if he failed to kill Syrio, because that would be admitting a further failure that Trant might prefer not to mention to Cersei.

Nobody, POV or otherwise, reported the death of Syrio.

Arya thought to herself only that Syrio was "probably" dead.

GRRM has been asked innumerable times whether Syrio is alive. Many times he simply doesn't answer; when he does, he implies but does not state that Syrio is dead. For example, he says "Why are people still asking this question? They saw where he was!" in a manner that implies, but does not state, that there is only one reasonable outcome from the fight. He said to Ran in a dismissive manner something that Ran believes he would not have said if it were not true that Syrio is dead, except that Ran is quite clear that George did not actually say "Syrio is dead" or anything equally unequivocal. In any event, Ran, who is perhaps the most knowledgeable person about ASOIAF, found it persuasive. Some people are convinced that if GRRM says that Tolkein should have let Gandalf die, then GRRM must have let Syrio die ... another good example of implying that Syrio is dead without actually saying so. It is certainly not proof that Syrio is alive. However, many people find GRRM's persistent evasiveness about Syrio to be very peculiar, especially given that if Syrio is dead, then it should not be that important whether or not he is dead, no different, in fact, than if he simply failed to reappear anywhere in the books but was, unknown to the readers, comfortably ensconced somewhere in a Braavos retirement home. Dead or gone, same effect, so why be so coy about it? Yet GRRM continues to avoid giving a direct answer to the question.

So we have no firm information to here: nobody saw Syrio die; nobody confirms that he is dead, despite having the stage (as Trant did in his scene reporting to Cersei, which seemed to have no other purpose) with the knowledge and the motivation to say so.

Some believe the fact that Syrio himself said "See with your eyes!" proves that he must be dead (are they channeling Douglas Adam's Proof of the Nonexistence of God?). Clearly, Syrio was in significant jeopardy, as we could "see with our eyes," and hence he must have died. Such an odd argument. We specifically DID NOT see Syrio die with our eyes. Moreover, the FM demonstrate that you cannot always see with your eyes: FM are often not as they appear (the KOM did not have a graveworm crawling through his eye, Jaqen changed, etc.) But it's not just the FM: by now, everybody knows that Sandor is alive, despite it being clear that he was about to die, and despite it being reported by a reliable (?) priest that he had "buried him myself." So while it is important to see what your opponent is doing by watching his movements, rather than assuming (the purpose of the exhortation to "see with your eyes"), it is clear that the statement is not literally true.

OK, but we had a fully armored Kingsguard against a poor little dancing master who only had a stick and a leather vest. Surely the dancing master had to die? Well, it's true that Trant was well defended by his armor (for example, he survived), and he could pretty well attack Syrio without fear. However, it's also true that Syrio is fast and very talented. For example, Syrio had just killed or decommissioned five gold cloak guards who had attacked him. He's in a big room, to be able to fight so many people. He moved quite rapidly (not to say "ran," because he clearly stated "the First Sword of Braavos does not run!", so he must have been dancing or walking quickly). Of course, those guardsmen weren't armored as fully, nor as talented as, the estimable Mr. Trant. Except that Trant wasn't held in such high esteem by a truly talented knight, such as Barristan, who, unarmored and unarmed, stopped Trant's advance with a contemptuous look and an insult.

Well, but even so, a well armored knight must be able to overcome an unarmored man who won't run! Like Ser Vardis Egen did to Bronn, oops, no; like Ser Gregor did to Oberyn Martell! Except Oberyn had beaten Gregor, but snatched death from the jaws of victory by getting carelessly close. In both cases, the more lightly armored man effectively defeated the more heavily armored man.

But we were left with Syrio in a terribly perilous position! Surely he must have died! As did Brienne, Hyle Hunt and Poderick Payne, seconds from hanging; the Hound, dying of infection; Gregor, dying of poison; Bran and Rickon, murdered by Theon; Arya, hit in the head with an axe by the Hound; etc. No, GRRM kills his well-loved characters as well as his hated characters, but he also lets characters live that appear certain to die.

So sure, the fully-armored Trant might have cut Syrio in two on the back slash from the swing that cut Syrio's sword. Or Syrio might have moved, either inside or outside Trant's range ... moving is not running. He might have danced away until the old, tired, heavily burdened Trant was unable to move. And Trant was old, besides being not well thought of as a fighter. Syrio was old, too (if he wasn't actually a young FM), but he was clearly still extremely fast, as proven by his actions before fighting Trant.

Many people insist that there is only a vanishingly small chance that Syrio is alive. Few of those who disagree takes such an extreme position, except in parody of the Syrio is dead crowd. Some say there is a moderate chance he is alive. Personally, on all the evidence I believe it significantly greater than even odds that Trant failed to kill Syrio; but even I acknowledge that Syrio could very easily have been killed by Trant. Do those who have firmly concluded that Syrio is dead seem more likely correct because they are quite certain, or less likely correct because their certainty is at odds with the conflicting evidence and lack of confirmation on the matter?

While I believe Syrio more likely than not survived Trant, I personally have concluded that it is highly unlikely that Syrio=Jaqen. As I've explained elsewhere, Jaqen's behavior prior to Arya rescuing him was inconsistent with the fierce loyalty he demonstrated toward Arya. But, as has been pointed out, Syrio disappears and Jaqen appears, only weeks apart! That discussion needs another post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, but even so, a well armored knight must be able to overcome an unarmored man who won't run! Like Ser Vardis Egen did to Bronn, oops, no; like Ser Gregor did to Oberyn Martell! Except Oberyn had beaten Gregor, but snatched death from the jaws of victory by getting carelessly close. In both cases, the more lightly armored man effectively defeated the more heavily armored man.

In all cases here, someone ended up dead.

Ser Vardis Egen was killed by Bronn.

Ser Gregor was dying but the viper got careless and paid with his life as a result.

In all cases above as well, all combatants are prepared for fighting and while they did wear light armour, that was their choice with their fighting style and they were still protected. Syrio had a stick that was slashed in half with no armour and Trant is alive and well.

As did Brienne, Hyle Hunt and Poderick Payne, seconds from hanging; the Hound, dying of infection; Gregor, dying of poison; Bran and Rickon, murdered by Theon; Arya, hit in the head with an axe by the Hound; etc. No, GRRM kills his well-loved characters as well as his hated characters, but he also lets characters live that appear certain to die.

Brienne is undisclosed as of now and the rest of her party.

The hound was dying of his wounds, yet there are subtle clues in the book to say that before he died he was saved and his wounds treated. Wordplay comes in here too. "The Hound" part of Sandor Clegane is dead, but not Sandor himself.

Bran and Rickon are dead to the world, but we know better because we have insight.

Arya was a cliffhanger moment, but a few chapters later we see Arya is okay.

I get your point that a lot of things happen that make it appear as if a character is dead when really they are not. I totally understand it.

But what most people seem to miss out on understanding is the fact that these "deaths" are resolved a few chapters later or there are clues to suggest they did not die.

Where is the proof in the book to suggest that Syrio is alive, or that Syrio is Jaqen? There is none. There is not a passage that you can draw that conclusion from. It is all speculation on the fans part. The only proof that these people can give is "Martin did not outright say he died, so he could still live." I agree with that sentiment, but like I said previously Martin would have also given us subtle clues/hints that he did not die, or was Jaqen, or what happened to him. Which he hasn't.

This is the key difference when you talk about Syrio compared to the others. The others may indeed have started the same way, but they get resolved and mentioned to clear it up. We are now entering book 5. No mention of Syrio. No clues to if he survived or not. No clues to draw him to being Jaqen. Absolutely nothing. Nothing but speculation from fans.

This is my problem with Syrio being alive. By all accounts, he may well be. But unless I can find some clues or hints in the book, I'm going to stick by the default option that Syrio died.

As for Martin not giving an outright answer? Well why not? If he gave an outright answer, there wouldn't be people like us discussing the issue. Maybe he has no plans for Syrio, knows that he intended for Syrio to die, but likes the fact that people still wonder about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A minor correction:

However, in acknowledging to Cersei that he had failed to capture Arya due to a delay caused by "the dancing master," Trant omitted any mention of having been unfortunately forced to kill said dancing master, which mention might have impressed upon Cersei the seriousness of the interference and thus helped alleviate her natural annoyance at him for losing Arya.

...

So we have no firm information to here: nobody saw Syrio die; nobody confirms that he is dead, despite having the stage (as Trant did in his scene reporting to Cersei, which seemed to have no other purpose) with the knowledge and the motivation to say so.

There is no scene of Trant reporting to Cersei. We therefore don't know what he told her about Syrio.

All we get is a comment from Cersei to Tyrion explaining that Trant failed to secure Arya because her "wretched dancing master interfered". Cersei makes no mention of the fate of the dancing master. She has no problem with doing down her henchmen to Tyrion (in the same conversation she says that Janos Slynt is "not as competent as might be wished"), so the overwhelmingly likely answer to why she does not mention Syrio's fate is because she does not consider it important enough to be worth mentioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncat is not cat in the slightest, at all.

Ok but what's that to do with the price of fish

Sandor was not dead. Sandor was left dying. The storyline explains what happened. Big difference from being left for dead compared to actually being dead.

Being dead like Cat was or Theon, Bran & Rickon appeared to be ? There is also a big difference between being left for dead and being left alive as Syrio was.

Uncat, Beric, Sandor, All have been mentioned in the same book or next book.

Arya has been constantly referring to Syrio since AGOT

:hat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM has been asked innumerable times whether Syrio is alive. Many times he simply doesn't answer; when he does, he implies but does not state that Syrio is dead. For example, he says "Why are people still asking this question? They saw where he was!" in a manner that implies, but does not state, that there is only one reasonable outcome from the fight. He said to Ran in a dismissive manner something that Ran believes he would not have said if it were not true that Syrio is dead, except that Ran is quite clear that George did not actually say "Syrio is dead" or anything equally unequivocal.

I made a similar point in another Syrio thread. If G.R.R. wanted to kill the speculation he has had ample opportunity to give a definitive answer. As I see it there are two possible reasons why G.R.R. hasn't done this:

1. Syrio is dead but G.R.R. doesn't want to discourage speculation (probably because he's enjoying us making fools of ourselves with all the wild speculation) but if this is the case however why not given a more neutral and non-committal reply. Why make comments that strongly suggest Syrio is dead yet provide a loophole.

2. Syrio is alive and he is trying to skilfully throw us off the scent without resorting to porkie pies

:hat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Ser Vardis Egen did to Bronn, oops, no; like Ser Gregor did to Oberyn Martell! Except Oberyn had beaten Gregor, but snatched death from the jaws of victory by getting carelessly close. In both cases, the more lightly armored man effectively defeated the more heavily armored man.

Um, neither Bronn nor Oberyn Martell were armed with a wooden sword that had been slashed in two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying people shouldn't link, I'm just saying that some of us need to be a bit more understanding when people (rarely being the operative word) restart a subject.

@ Ser Greguh, have you ever broken/slashed a piece of wood? It gets REALLY sharp, and if its already cut like a sword, it wouldn't be hard to poke someone in the visor with the jagged end. Granted this would take immense skill but we all know Syrio had that.

All in all, I wanted to remain removed from this argument because I really don't know either way, both sides make an interesting case. My personal opinion is that hes dead just because we haven't been giving any real (albeit) subtle clues to Jaqen being him. Usually GRRM will do something to confirm something like perhaps have Jaqen call Arya a name that Syrio would have used, or repeat a lesson he had taught her. I can't recall him ever doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...