Arya is not psychotic

[Horza]

She has at least one psychotic episode when stabbing the Tickler. She's not congenitally psychopathic but has all but lost her inhibitions to killing. This isn't a good thing.

[KyleLitke]

Yeah, I think you were clear enough about your overall intention; it seems like people mainly took issue with your claim that all her killings were justifiable. Personally, I think she's gone well beyond the point of merely killing for survival or duty, but I don't think this makes her irredeemably evil either. If everything does end well, as you say, she probably won't be completely shell-shocked or crazy, but, IMO, it does seem like she's getting scarred by her experiences. Like Jojen said, she's becoming a sword, an amoral instrument that can be used for either good or evil, and I imagine that involves a certain coarsening of the soul.

Who is? Did anyone say she was a nutjob psychopath?

Also you might want to read the blah blah blah more closely. People were arguing precisely what you say they weren't: namely that Arya did not have the legitimate authority to execute a NW deserter. GRRM has explained that only lords have the right to pass sentence, and the text makes it pretty clear that NW deserters must be sentenced to die, not simply killed out of hand.

Yes. I saw her called a psychopath in here. I used the term nutjob, but considering the main point seems to be she's now running around killing people because she feels like it, I felt it summed up the argument.

And you're arguing a technicality. There is no trial. Ned doesn't think "Well, gee, let me find him, then he can explain himself, then we'll see what I have to do". Is it a technicality that a lord is supposed to "declare it" first? perhaps, but the point is there is still no judge and jury. That seems to be what people are arguing, that Arya is wrong to just judge him, etc. etc., but there's no judging being done. He's guilty, and deserters don't get a trial. Is she, perhaps strictly from a legal standpoint, not in the right? That's likely. But nobody was arguing whether she's legally correct. People were calling her a bloodthirsty murderer based on, in large part, Dareon, and I disagree entirely.

I also disagree about the Tickler...again, I think this is being looked at from a modern perspective where all (or most) killing is morally wrong. This is a very violent society where killing is commonplace and nobody bothers to bring those people to justice. The Tickler tortured and killed how many people? In a modern society, we'd say "No, you can't just kill him, call the police and they'll deal with it". That's not how it works in that society. There's no police, and he was doing it on orders from the people who oversee him, so there's literally no recourse, no authority figure that would stop him. I'm not sure why she SHOULD feel remorse for killing him, considering everything that's happened to her and everything she saw him do.

[Snowmelter]

There is no question that Arya is a scared, angry, scarred little girl. The question is, where does she go from here? I look forward to seeing new Arya chapters.

[Kalbear]

Yes. I saw her called a psychopath in here. I used the term nutjob, but considering the main point seems to be she's now running around killing people because she feels like it, I felt it summed up the argument.

Then you felt fairly stupidly. No one used the term save the original poster, and no one has argued once that she's exhibited psychopathy. Try learning to read.

Also, while Westeros isn't modern it does have a legal system - and one of the standard tenets of Westeros law is that a noble is responsible for passing judgment. It can be a very easy judgment (desert == death), but it still has to happen or it is an unlawful killing. That's the real thing here - if you kill without sanction by a rightful lord you are in breach of the king's peace. And when that happens you're now an outlaw, potentially.

And you're arguing a technicality. There is no trial.

no one said there was. There is no trial; there is a sentence that is pronounced by a legal entity of the realm. It so happens that for the Starks and the North the person who makes the sentence should swing the blade - but the point there is the SENTENCE. Gared wasn't killed by the outriders. He wasn't killed by anyone who found him. They brought him to their lord to pass sentence. This is a crucial part of feudal custom; only the lord has the authority to pass sentence. And even if the penalty is death, even if it's a very easy and obvious case, only the lord can decide to pass the sentence legally. Arya isn't a lord, she has no authority or power, and she's not even on her land; this is also key, as it is the lord of the land that has the right to pass sentence (or the King, who rules over all). Being in Braavos? She has no authority whatsoever.

I also disagree about the Tickler...again, I think this is being looked at from a modern perspective where all (or most) killing is morally wrong.

Yes, because shouting 'IS THERE GOLD IN THE VILLAGE' while stabbing a guy in the back 50 times and screaming epithets the guy is famous for is obviously supposed to be rational, reasonable killing.

It has nothing to do with morally right or wrong killing. No one is arguing this. Try to read what people actually write. It has to do with the zeal and the clear joy she has in killing the Tickler. It has to do with a 10 year old having a list of people that she wants to kill and actually acting on that list. It has to do with her stabbing someone 50 times while screaming at him. Think about that scene; does that scene feel like someone exacting a sentence? Do you think it's justice to stab someone 50 times when the guy is dead after the first couple hits?

Seriously, at least Drogo had some reasonable basis for arguing. This is just sad.

[Snowmelter]

What is sad is that this poor little girl witnessed the Tickler's atrocities, the cold blooded killing of dozens of peasants, at the age of 9 or 10. It doesn't surprise me the way she retaliated when she had the chance. Children are primal. I suppose many of the posters have read Lord of the Flies.

I think Arya is a survivor, but her survival is at the expense of any who get in her way at this point. As for Daeron, I don't think she did this for any other reason than to stick a thumb in the eye of the FM. She agreed to give up her old life (but hid Needle) and then committed a "random" murder that just happened to be a deserter from the NW who the Starks had traditionally been in charge of. I doubt very much if many deserters of the NW ever made it south of the Neck. Perhaps Arya did it to see if the FM would understand what she did. Out on a limb, perhaps Arya's trying to see how "all powerfull" the FM are. Maybe she will try to manipulate them. LOL. Not likely, but fun to think about.

[Kittyhat]

Then you felt fairly stupidly. No one used the term save the original poster, and no one has argued once that she's exhibited psychopathy. Try learning to read.

Page 1:

Hackhamster calls Arya "crazy as a bedbug." Toe says, "Not psychotic, but likely psychopathic."

Page 2:

Millardkillmoore refers to Arya as "an unrepentant, cold-blooded murderer." He goes on to say her actions point to an "extremely deranged" mind and that "Arya is a sociopath or on her way to becoming one." He also calls her arrogant, selfish, and suggests she may have a god-complex.

Of those, Toe is outright calling Arya a psychopath using that exact word, and Hackmaster is using words that mean the same thing as calling her a nutjob, unless you know of some other interpretation of "crazy as a bedbug" that I'm unaware of.

Millardkillmoore never uses the word "psychopath," but he calls Arya just about everything but that, none of it complimentary to say the least, and all of it heavily implying "nutjob."

But there it is. Toe says "psychopath" exactly, Hackmaster says something that means exactly the same thing as "nutjob," and Millardkillmoore describes "nutjob" pretty well without actually using the word.

Before you call people stupid and tell them to "try learning to read"? ... try reading yourself first.

As to this:

because shouting 'IS THERE GOLD IN THE VILLAGE' while stabbing a guy in the back 50 times and screaming epithets the guy is famous for is obviously supposed to be rational, reasonable killing.

She held it together pretty well there if you ask me. Maybe you're some kind of superhuman who could suffer the immense trauma she's been through and just casually shrug it off, cool as a cucumber, but me? I'd probably be screaming the same things and then some, while bawling my eyes out and all the rest besides. Especially at that age!

I doubt I'd even remember afterwards half of the things I'd screamed.

Hey, you know what? Call me when you've been through even the tiniest fraction of the crap Arya's been through. 'Till then? Your words are just wind.

Come to it, they're not even wind.

[Restless]

Also, while Westeros isn't modern it does have a legal system - and one of the standard tenets of Westeros law is that a noble is responsible for passing judgment. It can be a very easy judgment (desert == death), but it still has to happen or it is an unlawful killing. That's the real thing here - if you kill without sanction by a rightful lord you are in breach of the king's peace. And when that happens you're now an outlaw, potentially.

As much as Arya knows, she is the last Stark survivor :P

[Kalbear]

Before you call people stupid and tell them to "try learning to read"? ... try reading yourself first.

And since you said psychotic...which no one actually stated...try again.

Fact is, she's a nutjob. She's a 10 year old that can kill a person for slighting her. That she is a 10 year old girl that is physically capable of killing adults, is functionally aware of exactly how to do so, and willing to do so if it suits her needs? That's well outside of societal norms for even Westeros. Well outside of societal norms == nutjob.

I don't blame her for it, I don't think she's a bad person and I certainly am not saying I don't understand where she's coming from - but at the same time, let's call a spade a spade. This is a person who killed more people via combat and subterfuge than Robb Stark ever did, or Tyrion Lannister ever did. And she's done it before she's hit puberty. Of course that's going to affect someone.

I doubt I'd even remember afterwards half of the things I'd screamed.

Hey, you know what? Call me when you've been through even the tiniest fraction of the crap Arya's been through. 'Till then? Your words are just wind.

Come to it, they're not even wind.

Sorry man, you're right - since you've totally suffered the same way as this fictional character in this fictional novel, you're WAY more able to talk about her. Sorry - didn't mean to offend an honest-to-goodness veteran of the war of the 5 kings!

There is a difference between understanding why someone is the way they are and accepting it as 'good'. I understand entirely why Arya is the way she is. I understand why she has little value on human life and I understand every death she participated in - even (if it happened) Dareon's. I understand well why she did each and every one.

But understanding doesn't make something right. It just makes it comprehendable. She doesn't kill without reason or motive. She doesn't kill just 'for the lulz'. She is certainly functional and not at all babbling to herself about how the dogs are telling her to kill deserters.

At the same time, she shows a huge lack of empathy, a distinct inability to reasonably gauge societal values, is exceptionally prone to violence, has an irrational desire for vengeance, is able to endure hardships that most humans can only have nightmares about and is unable to create new emotional connections. This is very close to the textbook definition of sociopathy and is similar to the behavior shown in the syndrome associated with child soldiers.

The closest she comes is to a criminal sociopath, where she has a set of rules that she does not violate, a code that she lives by, but does not show social or personal empathy and has little use for norms other than to manipulate.

That is, I'm afraid, a mental disorder.

Saying she has one isn't saying that she's a horrible person or that she's a bad character or any of those things. Arya is awesome and my favorite character in the book, and I love her. But the girl? She's craaaaaazy. And who wouldn't be in her shoes?

As much as Arya knows, she is the last Stark survivor

And if she were in Winterfell that might matter.

[Free Northman]

I see her as very similar to Jon Shannow, David Gemmell's iconic, self appointed vigilante, who goes around slaying brigands based solely on his own judgement. In other words, he is judge, jury and executioner.

Is he slightly insane? Sure. But in a very cool and enjoyable way. I fully expect Arya to go the same way. Her killings are far from over. But for the most part, those that die at her hands won't be missed. When she reaches the end of her life, I expect she will have removed far more evil people from the world than innocent ones.

So as a whole her contribution to Westeros society will have been a positive one.

[Kittyhat]

And since you said psychotic...which no one actually stated...try again.

Holy crap! Did you not read my post?

Again, Toe said "psychopathic." That exact word. That EXACT bloody word! And you said no one was saying Arya exhibited psychopathy, but you were wrong! FREAKING READ BEFORE YOU POST! :bang:

[Kittyhat]

man, you're right - since you've totally suffered the same way as this fictional character in this fictional novel, you're WAY more able to talk about her. Sorry - didn't mean to offend an honest-to-goodness veteran of the war of the 5 kings!

Cute strawman. I didn't say I've been through what she has, I said she's been through something so awful, her reaction with the screaming "IS THERE GOLD" and the like was not only understandable, it was probably normal given all she suffered and saw that man do. I said you should walk a mile in her shoes first because you seemed to think she should be somehow dispassionately detached and calm about it despite all of that (which, in fact, would actually much more point to a deranged person).

Or at the very least, you found her screaming while stabbing him to be the sign of a crazy person, rather than the "rational" killing that would have been ... what? Detached? Emotionless? Passionless?

Or perhaps she should have just let the Tickler possibly get lucky and manage to kill the Hound and then her? Or dialed 911?

Well, certainly we know the Tickler was a good man who didn't deserve to die! Poor Tickler. :crying:

You tell me what she did so wrong in that scene.

[Kalbear]

Again, Toe said "psychopathic." That exact word. That EXACT bloody word! And you said no one was saying Arya exhibited psychopathy, but you were wrong! FREAKING READ BEFORE YOU POST!

You're right. My apologies.

Because clearly that's been really the tenor of the posts here.

You tell me what she did so wrong in that scene.

Wow. This isn't anything to do with wrong!

She did nothing wrong in that scene. Or rather she didn't do anything that doesn't make sense. But she absolutely had a psychotic break in that scene. She went completely mental and stabbed a guy 50 times well after he was dead while screaming random obscenities and catchphrases. It made perfect sense.

But is that 'normal' for a 10 year old? Is it normal for anyone? If you did that - if most humans did that - would you expect some measure of psychological fallout for that?

I don't think that she should have been detached from the killing. I don't think that she should have approached it rationally and reasonably. I don't think should comes into the equation here. But I recognize that if a 10 year old can kill someone and do so well, and do so by stabbing the guy in the back 50 times while releasing huge amounts of rage and anger and hate - that something is not right with that 10 year old. Tell me, kittyhat - do you think Arya is in her right mind? Do you think that she could easily go back to a pre-war or post-war society after all this? Do you think that she wouldn't be violent towards people that she felt wronged her?

Do you think it's a normal human behavior to have a litany of people to kill and fully expect and realize those deaths personally? And specifically be so goal-oriented as to plan how to enable yourself to kill those people? And do so when you're 10 years old?

Here's a counterexample: the Deadwood fight scene in Season 3. If you haven't seen it, it has two lieutenants of crime groups fighting a brutal, no-holds barred fist fight to the death. The person does kill the other in the end, though he doesn't scream about it. He doesn't freak out..at the time. And this is a guy who has killed before.

You see him later in a bathtub, covered in bruises and physically shaking and crying. You see him horrified at what he had to do to survive. You don't see his satisfaction in killing someone who needed killing; you see him reliving that fight and that pain that he personally inflicted. He had every reasonable right to kill that person - but it still took a toll on his psyche. And this isn't current norms either, this was about as Westerosian as you can get - the wild west, lack of laws and lack of morals.

If Arya weren't damaged I would expect this kind of reaction. I would expect her to sob and not be able to do anything for a while, or stand there in shock. I would expect her to not immediately give mercy to another guy and then calmly search their bodies for money, then ride off afterwards. Hell, compare this to Robb's execution of the Karstark. He has every right to kill the guy, is doing his duty and no one would condemn him for it - yet afterwards he cries and runs off and is fucked up for weeks. I would expect her, in short, to freak the fuck out a little bit.

But she doesn't. She acts rationally afterwards. She doesn't give the Tickler or that entire thing a second thought after, except to cross his name off her list. That extreme swing of emotion - from the cathartic battle cries one second to cold, dispassionate reason the next - is what worries me about her. It's what makes her abnormal. You see this in other people in Westeros, where they have different reactions to killing; only hardened killers like the Hound react like she does. You see this in other people's reaction to HER killing people - Gendry and Hot Pie and the like all look at her like 'what the fuck?' Because it is abnormal. It's abnormal to turn that kind of emotion off. Especially in a 10 year old. Kids have nightmares for weeks when they see things like scary movies; what do you think a normal kid would do if they actually had to stab a person to death?

now, I understand why she doesn't have nightmares. I understand why she isn't affected by these things. She has gone through huge amounts of trauma and has had to sell her soul to survive. But that doesn't mean that she isn't damaged here. That doesn't mean that she isn't a sociopath at this point. That just means I understand the road that she traveled to get there, and in a lot of ways that's more heartbreaking that blithely accepting her personality as a silly quirk and moving on.

[Alexius]

Kittyhat,

Arya's behavior and development are natural for a person who lived through all horrors that she has experienced, but it doesn't mean Arya herself is a normal person. There's a difference between empathizing and understanding somebody and seeing him or her as a decent and normal person. Remember Maribald: he feel with broken men, but he doesn't approve their doings.

[Free Northman]

Kittyhat,

Arya's behavior and development are natural for a person who lived through all horrors that she experienced, but it doesn't mean Arya herself is a normal person. There's a difference between empathizing and understanding somebody and seeing him or her as a decent and normal person. Remember Maribald: he feel with broken men, but he doesn't approve their doings.

I have to point out that she's intended to be an assassin. Not a septa. That kind of insinuates that she ain't gonna adhere to our modern codes of morality.

In my view, as long as she is an assassin who aims to kill mostly bad guys, then I'm perfectly happy with that.

[Alexius]

I have to point out that she's intended to be an assassin. Not a septa. That kind of insinuates that she ain't gonna adhere to our modern codes of morality.

So? Does it give her an automatic pass on a psychiatry check?

In my view, as long as she is an assassin who aims to kill mostly bad guys, then I'm perfectly happy with that.

Oh, I'm happy with Aerys II burning people because it makes a great story.

ETA: On "applying modern moral": Do you think Ned or Cat (as parents, not aristocrats) would be ok with Arya's deeds and aspirations ?

[Free Northman]

So? Does it give her an automatic pass on a psychiatry check?

Oh, I'm happy with Aerys II burning people because it makes a great story.

Well, if you want to do an evaluation based on modern psychiatric and psychological principles then I would argue that the majority of medieval humans were probably suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress, abnormal and abusive formative childhood years, an over exposure to violence and a desensitization to brutality.

By modern psychiatric definitions they were probably ALL suffering from various degrees of mental disorder.

But this is Westeros. Captured women become saltwives, innocent maidens are ravaged just for being seen in the Riverlands, people's hands are chopped off when they steal, and most people are brutalized in one way or another by their overlords.

The point is, you cannot use modern psychiatric standards to evaluate them. They have all hardened the f**** up compared to our soft modern civilization. They have had to, in order to survive.

By their standards, Arya is just an incredibly tough, resilient and strong minded young girl. A survivor.

[Kalbear]

But see, free northman, even by westeros views she is a bit much. Never mind that she's breaking all the rules as a girl doing these things, we see the shock from others in her acts. Gendry and hot pie both react shocked, we get the old witch who sees the horror and sadness in arya. About the only one who reacts with indifference is the Hound.

Who openly admits to enjoying killing and scares many.

[Alexius]

By their standards, Arya is just an incredibly tough, resilient and strong minded young girl. A survivor.

Do you think Ned or Cat (as parents, not aristocrats) would be ok with Arya's deeds and aspirations (even if they treated her as a boy)?

[Horza]

But see, free northman, even by westeros views she is a bit much. Never mind that she's breaking all the rules as a girl doing these things, we see the shock from others in her acts. Gendry and hot pie both react shocked, we get the old witch who sees the horror and sadness in arya. About the only one who reacts with indifference is the Hound.

Who openly admits to enjoying killing and scares many.

Yeah, the Ghost of High Heart is pretty down on her: "Wolf child, blood child"

[Free Northman]

But see, free northman, even by westeros views she is a bit much. Never mind that she's breaking all the rules as a girl doing these things, we see the shock from others in her acts. Gendry and hot pie both react shocked, we get the old witch who sees the horror and sadness in arya. About the only one who reacts with indifference is the Hound.

Who openly admits to enjoying killing and scares many.

If the ability to control her emotions to such an extent is a symptom of some kind of sociopathic condition, then sure, Arya is a sociopath.

But in my view, she is just a tough, hard individual who makes instant judgement calls based on her worldview, and has a black and white view of good and bad. If you're "good" by her definition, you are safe. If you are bad, you are a potential target.

It is just the criteria she uses to place people in these categories that people are unhappy with.

Is a police sniper a sociopath for feeling nothing when he kills a hostage taker in cold blood? Arya just extends that judgement to include a much wider portion of society than merely a hypothetical hostage taker. The stableboy in Harrenhal, for example. He falls within that cateogry by virtue of being a servant of the enemy.

It is just a matter of the standards by which she judges who is good and who is bad. But she never breaks that rule, as it exists in her mind.

You may disagree with her criteria for good and evil, but her gods are the old, hard gods of the North, not the compassionate Episcolians or humanitarians of this day and age.