Any predictions of Arya's fate?

[lomiller]

Nope: murder's still a thing in Westeros, believe it or not. And even assuming that were true, there's a lot that's technically morally defensible by Westeros standards that the more moral ASOIAF characters find horrifying: the Hound's murder of Mycah (legal, since Mycah had supposedly attacked the prince, morally reprehensible to Ned and AGOT Arya) and his reaction to it, Tyrion marrying Sansa at 12 (legal, since Sansa had to marry at the king's command and had flowered, totally morally reprehensible and horrifying to Cat, Brienne, Robb, random courtiers, etc.), Aerys raping Rhaella (legal since marital rape is not a legal concept in Westeros, morally reprehensible to Jaime and others), etc. etc.

While it doesn't make sense to just plunk out own standards of right and wrong into this world I don't think we can simply accept their standards either. Provided the victim is sufficiently lower in status, murder in Westeros seems more like a scandal than a crime anyone actually gets punished for and Jaime is reviled for saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people because he did so by killing his king.

Maybe it just the way the Arya chapters present it, but I LIKE Braavos more than any other place we've seen so far, and the main reason is that there is a degree of freedom and even some measure equality we've see nowhere else. Slaves and be killed by their masters with impunity in most of Essos and the nobility regularly tramples, murders, rapes, starves and generally oppress the "small folk" in Westeros with little consequence.

In Braavos if you make anyone hate you enough that they are willing to make the sacrifice required anyone can die at any time. There is actually an incentive to treat people of lower standing with some measure of respect and IMO this is why the average person enjoys more freedom and equality there.

[lomiller]

Maybe we'll just have to disagree here, because that passage reaffirms my opinion. They are giving her a new face, not the one she has (which at that moment is her own, they've just removed the ugly girl) and the new face will be as pretty as her own. They do not say she'll have her own face, but she'll have one just as pretty. They are making a comparison between two things (as pretty as), comparing a given thing to itself in that way just makes no sense.

As for someone else describing her face, absence of proof is not in itself proof. It's kind of tricky to do at all in a PoV writing style, we didn't see that in the Ugly Girl chapter either. I mean what were you expecting? Would someone come up to the ugly girl and say "wow, you're really Ugly?" So why expect someone to come up to Mercy and say "Gee, you're really pretty but you look nothing like your Aunt Lyanna?" Yeah we expect Arya to blossom into a striking looking young woman resembling her Aunt, but how is anyone in Braavos supposed to be in a position to make that comparison?

I agree, but I don't think there is an absence of evidence here. "Mercy" sees people who know "Cat" and thinks they wouldn't know her. Furthermore she's going to be on stage in front of those people, so if she is using that face they would very likely recognize her. I find it very doubtful she is using her own face.

[Littlefinger's dagger]

Newstar, we're clearly at a impasse here. We're unable to agree on what Arya's motives are, and what she is or is becoming. You've made your argument, and a number of people don't buy it -- myself included. Not all killing of a human being is reprehensible murder, there are many degrees, you don't seem to allow for that. Killing in self defense or in the defense of others, killing on the battlefield, killing by pure accident or some carelessness, killing for revenge, killing for personal gain, killing for hire, killing for the love of killing (serial murder) -- all of these are killing and yet modern society places very different standards for forgiveness on all of them.

I think Daeron's death was Arya taking justice in her own hands, and while we can argue about whether that was a good move it tells me she still has a sense of justice and I see that in itself as a good thing. I just don't buy that she's the amoral monster you make her out to be.

She doesn't kill because she enjoys it, she does it because she thinks it's right, and why doing the right thing is supposed to always feel awful just doesn't scan. If she's glad to have killed the piece of crap (Raff) that killed her friend, I am unsurprised and fairly sympathetic.

[StarlightShoals]

She's one of the characters that I feel very sure will die, but I could be wrong.

"Mercy" has only made me feel so more strongly, but it's also made me very interested to read the rest of her story...

[thoughtless711]

I believe "Arya" has flunked her latest "test" yet. Remain confident that she will adapt.

[Newstar]

She's one of the characters that I feel very sure will die, but I could be wrong.

"Mercy" has only made me feel so more strongly, but it's also made me very interested to read the rest of her story...

Yes. If anything, "Mercy" solidified my belief that Arya will die. I was on the fence after ADWD, since it seemed like GRRM was pulling back from the "Arya is a remorseless murderer" angle: the FM were teaching her that it's not up to her to decide who lives and who dies, and she seemed to be at least considering the lesson. (Ideally, the lesson would be "It's not up to you to decide who lives and who dies and therefore you shouldn't kill people" and not "It's not up to you to decide who lives and who dies and therefore you should only kill your assigned targets," but baby steps.) In this chapter, though, Arya clearly hasn't learned anything about giving up the idea that it's not for her to decide who lives and who dies and she's back to her predatory ways. Worse yet, not only is she mimicking her Dareon kill, which bore all the signs of a cold-blooded murderer (complete with nabbing Dareon's boots as a trophy and bragging about killing him), but she has also added a ritualistic element to her kills as well and shows an obvious delight at the prospect of killing that was only hinted at with Dareon. It says a lot of things about the way Arya's arc is going and how it will end, and none of those things are good.

Newstar, we're clearly at a impasse here. We're unable to agree on what Arya's motives are, and what she is or is becoming. You've made your argument, and a number of people don't buy it -- myself included.

Actually, a lot of people buy my argument, which isn't even my argument--there were a ton of "Arya is turning into a remorseless killer in a tragic death spiral" threads floating around before the Mercy chapter came out, and the Mercy chapter certainly vindicated those posters--and I think many who disagreed before the Mercy chapter changed their minds once it came out. It really puts the lie to everyone claiming that Arya's a redeemable character who's all about the justice and who only kills for "survival" and out of "necessity."

Not all killing of a human being is reprehensible murder, there are many degrees, you don't seem to allow for that.

I did allow for that. Ned's a killer and Barristan's a killer, as I stated upthread; they are two characters we think of as decent men, and which Westeros thinks of as decent men, but they have undoubtedly killed. Many other characters are killers who are not monstrous; they kill to defend themselves, to defend others, or because they are ordered to do so. What they do not do is hunt people down to kill them on their own initiative for purely personal reasons; nor do they take any joy in killing. As I said, it's the enjoyment of and the independent pursuit of killing that marks Arya as a monster, not the act of killing itself. She's been killing since AGOT, but GRRM has carefully with each subsequent kill stripped away our ability to defend Arya (although some persist in doing so, out of stubbornness or denial, I suppose). She's gone from accidental kills or kills in self-defence in earlier books to selecting people independently with no outward circumstance or necessity compelling her other than personal desires, luring them to private locations, and killing them.

She now evokes not Ned--who executed NW deserters but took no pleasure in it--nor even the Hound--who hunted Mycah down and killed him but did so on orders--but Stoneheart, who's determined to murder any and all Freys she can get her hands on in the name of vengeance, Ramsay, who poisoned Domeric for personal reasons, and Tyrion, who murdered Nurse even though he was already dying of the pale mare for no other reason than revenge, spite and getting the better of Nurse. Those people are her moral peers now, not Ned and not even the Hound: Stoneheart, Ramsay and Tyrion.

I think Daeron's death was Arya taking justice in her own hands, and while we can argue about whether that was a good move it tells me she still has a sense of justice and I see that in itself as a good thing.

Again, I think you're missing the point. GRRM is explicitly linking Arya's progressively disturbing kills with her moral decline, as she was punished by the FM and lectured about how it's not up to her to decide who lives and who dies, a lesson she's decided to reject. "Justice" has nothing to do with her desire to kill Raff; it's all about the thrill she feels at the opportunity to make him suffer and murder him.

I just don't buy that she's the amoral monster you make her out to be.

I'm not quite sure what GRRM has to do at this point to convince you. The "Mercy" chapter shows he's clearly trying as hard as he can.

To the people thinking Arya is a monster because she has some crazy desire to kill that she gets off on or shows no empathy, you’re just wrong. Arya doesn’t get any satisfaction out of killing or death in a storm of swords this is how she reacted to Jeffry’s death “Joffrey’s dead! She knew it ought to make her happy, but somehow she still felt empty inside. Joffrey was dead, but if Robb was dead too, what did it matter?”

Exactly! That was her test. That was the moment when she should have said "Screw this. Joffrey's dead and I don't feel anything. Maybe I should scrap this whole revenge plan and do something better with my life, since if even Joffrey's death can't make me feel better, I don't think any of the other names on my list will." She came thisclose to making a breakthrough and failed, just as Tyrion came thisclose to breaking free of his wretched family and failed (instead of just escaping, he murdered Tywin and Shae, later dedicated his life to raping and murdering Cersei and claiming his legacy). She'll likely pay for her failure to give up on her need for revenge with her life, eventually, just as Tyrion will with his.

She goes out of her way to kill Raff and the Black brother because she is a charter of justice, and justice demands that they die.

Except it's not up to her to decide who lives and who dies, as the FM--an assassin guild, hardly a moral authority--tried and failed to get her to understand. That she persists in her kills indicates that she's failed to absorb this critical lesson, which does not bode well for her survival prospects. Characters who fail to absorb critical lessons get dead very quickly in this series.

She never revels in kills and enjoys them

She enjoyed killing Dareon (she took his boots and bragged about killing him). She took deep, near-sexual pleasure at the prospect of killing Raff, showing the only real emotion she demonstrates in the entire Mercy chapter, even as she otherwise remains almost clinically detached. If you think she didn't revel in the Raff kill, I think you need to reread the chapter.

You're also making the mistake of lumping all her kills together. GRRM has marked a very clear progression in her kills. There was a time when she took no pleasure in killing even those on her list, but that time has long passed. The most recent "progression" is the ritual element, the almost lustful eagerness and anticipation ("she wanted him"), as well as selecting a kill on her list as opposed to someone "pre-condemned" by the law of Westeros (Dareon, the NW deserter). It's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a moral decline as marked by the nature of her kills, as they become less and less defensible and more and more reprehensible.

[DeepBlueSky]

'Progressively disturbing kills'?

Every single one of them was justified.

And no, GRRM is not trying to show us that Arya is an amoral monster. That's some serious reading comprehension fail if you think that.

'Near sexual pleasure'? 'Clinically detached'? You've got some seriously messed up views on what's going on in Arya's head, Newstar, and it's worthy of repeating: seriously reading comprehension fail. Arya is no sociopath. Believe that if you wish, but that is not the direction GRRM has been or is taking her.

Also, Tyrion never 'dedicated his life to raping and murdering Cersei and claiming his legacy'. Are you on drugs when you read GRRM? Your interpretation of Tyrion's motives and POV might be worse than your interpretation of Arya's.

Stoneheart, Ramsey, Tyrion, and Arya moral peers? Not one of them is a moral peer of the other. In descension on the morality scale from white to black I think it's pretty clearly
Arya > Tyrion > ... > Stoneheart >... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > Ramsey (a character who is one of the only truly sociopathic almost pure deviants in the entire series, who actually does take pleasure in torturing and killing others, something that neither Arya, Tyrion, or Stoneheart ever do.). And I'm positive that both Tyrion and Stoneheart would agree with this order (save Stoneheart would think Tyrion worse as she's blinded with hate for Lannisters).

Tyrion's killings of Tywin, Shae, and Nurse were all more than justified.

[Newstar]

'Progressively disturbing kills'?

Every single one of them was justified.

If you don't see any sort of progression from "accidentally stabbing someone trying to apprehend her and agonizing over it later" to "thrilling that the gods have given her a gift when she sees a mark she has marked for death, luring that mark she's preselected for murder into an alley on the pretense of seduction, and killing him in ritualistic fashion, her only regret being that she didn't kill him closer to the water" and if you can't mark the progression in her kills becoming more disturbing and less defensible with each kill, I'd say you're the one with reading comprehension problems. :D

And no, GRRM is not trying to show us that Arya is an amoral monster.

He pretty much is. I had my doubts after ADWD, but the Mercy chapter swept them all away. The Dareon kill was not an outlier. The Dareon kill was a big hint as to where her arc is going. All the "But he was a NW deserter, so luring him into an alley and murdering him was totally cool and righteous and not an ominous hint as to Arya's arc in the least!" posters should properly be eating their words after the release of the Mercy chapter, if they've been paying any attention at all.

'Near sexual pleasure'?

The phrase "She wanted him so bad," a phrase which usually connotes sexual desire--notable in a chapter loaded with sexual innuendo and sexual references, where Arya pretends to seduce someone and feigns sexual interest in Raff--is used, in reference to Arya wanting to kill Raff, coupled with her thinking that the gods have given her a gift when she recognizes him. "Near-sexual pleasure" sums it up nicely.

Arya is no sociopath.

I dunno if I'd call her a sociopath. A remorseless, sadistic murderer, on the other hand...well, if the shoe fits...

Believe that if you wish, but that is not the direction GRRM has been or is taking her.

Hate to burst your bubble, there, but she's taken that direction. She has become a remorseless, sadistic killer. That ship has sailed. Whether she can turn back from the course she's on is another question entirely, but make no mistake: she's on that course.

Stoneheart, Ramsey, Tyrion, and Arya moral peers? Not one of them is a moral peer of the other.

Their kills are bear far more in common with Arya's than Ned's or the Hound's kills, which was my point. It's a good indication of how far she's fallen, and how far she may yet fall.

Tyrion's killings of Tywin, Shae, and Nurse were all more than justified.

No, they really, really weren't.

...Interestingly, Tyrion's kills in the later books somewhat mirror Arya's in terms of progression. In ASOS, he kills someone he believes has wronged him in an exceptionally angry, violent manner: Arya stabs the Tickler repeatedly, while Tyrion strangles Shae. In ADWD, Tyrion poisons Nurse and makes sure that Nurse knows that Tyrion is responsible for his death, while in TWOW, Arya murders Raff in a manner seemingly designed to evoke Raff's memory of killing Lommy (successfully, since Raff's head jerks up sharply as if in recognition before Arya kills him). Any Arya/Tyrion parallels don't bode well for Arya's long-term prospects, I hardly need say.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

I can understand arguing the direction and meaning of some of the things Arya does, etc., but I can't believe that it's even up for discussion that killing Raff was anything other than sweet justice.

[chrisdaw]

I reckon Arya dies or beats the foreshadowing by leaving an Arya corpse behind to fool the world and taking a new face/identity. I hope the latter.

[Elaena Targaryen]

Yes. If anything, "Mercy" solidified my belief that Arya will die. I was on the fence after ADWD, since it seemed like GRRM was pulling back from the "Arya is a remorseless murderer" angle: the FM were teaching her that it's not up to her to decide who lives and who dies, and she seemed to be at least considering the lesson. (Ideally, the lesson would be "It's not up to you to decide who lives and who dies and therefore you shouldn't kill people" and not "It's not up to you to decide who lives and who dies and therefore you should only kill your assigned targets," but baby steps.) In this chapter, though, Arya clearly hasn't learned anything about giving up the idea that it's not for her to decide who lives and who dies and she's back to her predatory ways. Worse yet, not only is she mimicking her Dareon kill, which bore all the signs of a cold-blooded murderer (complete with nabbing Dareon's boots as a trophy and bragging about killing him), but she has also added a ritualistic element to her kills as well and shows an obvious delight at the prospect of killing that was only hinted at with Dareon. It says a lot of things about the way Arya's arc is going and how it will end, and none of those things are good.

Actually, a lot of people buy my argument, which isn't even my argument--there were a ton of "Arya is turning into a remorseless killer in a tragic death spiral" threads floating around before the Mercy chapter came out, and the Mercy chapter certainly vindicated those posters--and I think many who disagreed before the Mercy chapter changed their minds once it came out. It really puts the lie to everyone claiming that Arya's a redeemable character who's all about the justice and who only kills for "survival" and out of "necessity."

I did allow for that. Ned's a killer and Barristan's a killer, as I stated upthread; they are two characters we think of as decent men, and which Westeros thinks of as decent men, but they have undoubtedly killed. Many other characters are killers who are not monstrous; they kill to defend themselves, to defend others, or because they are ordered to do so. What they do not do is hunt people down to kill them on their own initiative for purely personal reasons; nor do they take any joy in killing. As I said, it's the enjoyment of and the independent pursuit of killing that marks Arya as a monster, not the act of killing itself. She's been killing since AGOT, but GRRM has carefully with each subsequent kill stripped away our ability to defend Arya (although some persist in doing so, out of stubbornness or denial, I suppose). She's gone from accidental kills or kills in self-defence in earlier books to selecting people independently with no outward circumstance or necessity compelling her other than personal desires, luring them to private locations, and killing them.

She now evokes not Ned--who executed NW deserters but took no pleasure in it--nor even the Hound--who hunted Mycah down and killed him but did so on orders--but Stoneheart, who's determined to murder any and all Freys she can get her hands on in the name of vengeance, Ramsay, who poisoned Domeric for personal reasons, and Tyrion, who murdered Nurse even though he was already dying of the pale mare for no other reason than revenge, spite and getting the better of Nurse. Those people are her moral peers now, not Ned and not even the Hound: Stoneheart, Ramsay and Tyrion.

Again, I think you're missing the point. GRRM is explicitly linking Arya's progressively disturbing kills with her moral decline, as she was punished by the FM and lectured about how it's not up to her to decide who lives and who dies, a lesson she's decided to reject. "Justice" has nothing to do with her desire to kill Raff; it's all about the thrill she feels at the opportunity to make him suffer and murder him.

I'm not quite sure what GRRM has to do at this point to convince you. The "Mercy" chapter shows he's clearly trying as hard as he can.

Exactly! That was her test. That was the moment when she should have said "Screw this. Joffrey's dead and I don't feel anything. Maybe I should scrap this whole revenge plan and do something better with my life, since if even Joffrey's death can't make me feel better, I don't think any of the other names on my list will." She came thisclose to making a breakthrough and failed, just as Tyrion came thisclose to breaking free of his wretched family and failed (instead of just escaping, he murdered Tywin and Shae, later dedicated his life to raping and murdering Cersei and claiming his legacy). She'll likely pay for her failure to give up on her need for revenge with her life, eventually, just as Tyrion will with his.

Except it's not up to her to decide who lives and who dies, as the FM--an assassin guild, hardly a moral authority--tried and failed to get her to understand. That she persists in her kills indicates that she's failed to absorb this critical lesson, which does not bode well for her survival prospects. Characters who fail to absorb critical lessons get dead very quickly in this series.

She enjoyed killing Dareon (she took his boots and bragged about killing him). She took deep, near-sexual pleasure at the prospect of killing Raff, showing the only real emotion she demonstrates in the entire Mercy chapter, even as she otherwise remains almost clinically detached. If you think she didn't revel in the Raff kill, I think you need to reread the chapter.

You're also making the mistake of lumping all her kills together. GRRM has marked a very clear progression in her kills. There was a time when she took no pleasure in killing even those on her list, but that time has long passed. The most recent "progression" is the ritual element, the almost lustful eagerness and anticipation ("she wanted him"), as well as selecting a kill on her list as opposed to someone "pre-condemned" by the law of Westeros (Dareon, the NW deserter). It's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a moral decline as marked by the nature of her kills, as they become less and less defensible and more and more reprehensible.

Newstar,

We have discussed Arya previously and I enjoyed discussing her with you as you do not argue the typical "she is just an evil psycho /end discussion, no point to go any further" but I'm not the typical Arya fan either. I know Arya is dark morally but I find that interesting, and I can not say just how far she could go, however she has not crossed a line for me yet where I can simply condemn her to a label of monster or psycho without examination - although Arya did claim the title of monster herself in the Mercy chapter, and as disturbing as it is it made me smile since I enjoy reading darker characters at times.

"As I cannot be the hero, let me be the monster, and lesson them in fear in place of love.” Mercy mouthed the last lines along with him.

Also I do not subscribe to "Arya is consumed by vengeance and justice, so it can be an excuse or defense", yes those are angry aspects to her character that I appreciate, but I feel instead Arya is consumed by gaining power - if you read her through that lens the complexities with her character become truly intriguing. The majority of her kills, and those put on her list, have to do with Arya not having any power in certain situations. The wolf might need to hide in sheep's clothing but it is still a wolf - for whatever multitude of reasons Arya feels she cannot be the hero so she embraces the monster/wolf instead - as the Ghost called her; wolf child, blood child, dark heart. The more power Arya gains the more she wants to use it.

There are a few points I wanted to make regarding subtleties in Arya's story, though this is not intended as any type of defense or excuse for anything since I only want to look deeper at what all may be going on or happening instead of remaining on the surface of black and white, the character development if you will.

(This may end up a long post so apologies for that, I'll put the explanations for my thoughts in a spoiler box because of length and because I have posted very similar thoughts elsewhere.)

First with Dareon I suspect, and will explain why, Arya needed to make a kill to advance her training, a power move, I also feel Arya was not punished but promoted for killing him and keeping his boots was for proof and not for some kind of trophy. I think she needed to choose someone and Dareon being a Night's Watch deserter may have been a lesser evil in her eyes.

Dareon:

There are big gaps where we do not receive all of the information or Arya's thought processes that lead to her huge jumps in training and it leaves so much room, or even too much room, for speculations. When Arya first starts being a part of the House she notices three acolytes that wear black and white robes (without cowls) and mentions that at least one of them, the youngest one, is blind, and that she can not speak to them at that time because she has not started learning the Braavosi language yet and Arya has separate duties at this time anyway.

When we learn Arya has been working very hard at the Braavosi lessons we also learn she approached the Kindly Man about changing her face like Jaqen does and he tells her that she should learn to rule her own face first, which Arya spends much time practicing in front of mirror and shortly after the Kindly Man changes Arya's duties to working with the other acolytes, which at least one we know is blind, but Arya is still dressed in regular servants garb in stead of the black and white robes of the acolytes. The moon turns and turns while Arya works on her lessons and while she works with the other acolytes tending to the dead. Then one day the Kindly Man tells her he plans to send Arya out into the city as Cat to learn the language better but I would think there is more going on here because when Arya leaves she is "so happy she could dance."

I would speculate that from talking with the other acolytes that Arya might know this means she has been accepted as a member of the organization and that this means her official training has begun because of all of her hard work and determination, but there are several gaps here and we do not have all of information. But if the blind acolyte that Arya has lived and worked with for all of this time became blind as a stage in his training in the same manner, making a kill, he could have explained this to Arya even if not intentionally, before or after she was sent out into the city because we have also missed periods where she came back to the House during the new moon only to leave again. I can speculate why making a kill could be a part of the training in the beginning because the Kindly Man can learn an extreme amount about them through this, such as even if they are capable of killing to how good they are to what motivates them and so on.

We know that Arya has watched Dareon for months so this was not some impulsive decision. And as far as we know Arya has only heard of "Lord Snow" after she decided to kill Dareon because it was during their conversation on the way to alley where it happened, but again there could be gaps here where we don't know if she knew anymore about Jon from talking with Sam or Dareon. But we do know that Dareon being a deserter of the Night's Watch has been contemplated as a motive for her. At the time when Arya tells the Kindly Man about Dareon he shows no concern except for "who" did it and seemed to not like that "Arya of House Stark" did this which is a motivation factor as in how she chose and why she did it. But this was at the close of her story in AFfC and makes for a cliffhanger type situation, her being blind and all, to speculate on and I know before ADwD came out some even speculated that Arya did not kill Dareon herself.

So in ADwD we have more information and we know the Kindly Man has explained their creed and in following that she should not have killed Dareon. But we also learn that being made blind was not just strictly a punishment for Arya killing Dareon and it is also made clear that it is a normal part of training for acolytes, which also draws attention back to the blind acolyte from AFfC. Arya continues her service and lessons with the Kindly Man pushing Arya to have more control with the persona that is expected to be perceived by others at any given time, so it's all business as usual. We all know how Arya has advanced to the next stage by being given her sight back but we are missing some specifics as to why they really want Arya to make her first professional kill. Which is why I felt the need to go back and comb over things again. But regardless Arya has been moved along in her training to the point to be trusted to take a life for the cult on behalf of their the Many Faced God, the insurance man.

Now I feel there are some very similar things with the build up to Dareon's murder in AFfC as with the insurance broker's murder in ADwD. I would list them to show the similarities but my post is going to be so long anyway so I would encourage any who are interested to go back and read these passages together. It appears to me that Arya is psyching herself up to make a calculated kill both times and she seems to struggle to find excuses to kill both men, like with their appearances and such. With the insurance broker Arya keeps taking her different motives to the Kindly Man and he maintains the Faceless Man creed in response to her... until the last time where he, unnecessarily considering their creed, provides her with a motive that prickles her strong sense of justice. Also for a man who has mastered controlling his facial expressions I found his "sad smile" suspect when he drops the bomb.

So here we have Arya make her first kill on their behalf, but against their creed because she did so in a judgmental manner, and the Kindly Man still decides it's time for her to advance to the next stage in training, and finally gives her the black and white robe the acolytes wear and with her first apprenticeship. I find this all very suspect and I feel they are being very manipulative with her, but maybe that's only me?

Then I feel there was so much more to the Raff killing that there is no way it was about only or just taking out someone from her list. Also I think Raff is on the list not necessarily for vengeance for Lommy but because Arya felt powerless to save him, and Arya truly hates to feel powerless.

Raff:

I honestly don't see how some feel that the Mercy chapter shows or proves certain opinions like; "Arya is a sexualized sociopathic killer with no empathy who does not even think of her family when surrounded by all of the imagery - which this chapter proves all of the above" I see too many contradictions here.

I think it would be impossible for Arya, being/playing Mercy or not, not be reminded of her family here and I don't need a specific 'thought' from her to tell me so. They are there with us and Mercy the entire time, Sansa is invoked so strongly in this chapter it's almost oppressive - to the point many think Mercy must be acting as Sansa in the play and/or Arya models Mercy after Sansa. Don't forget who's perspective this chapter is written in since she spends her time forcing herself to be Mercy. Martin wrote the chapter as Arya so Arya is the one invoking these intense feelings, it may not be very specific 'thoughts' like some want however I was no less emotionally effected but probably more so.

I felt that is why Arya becomes so passionate about needing to kill Raff that it seems sexualized "She wanted him so bad" and all that. Arya has been having wolf dreams with Bran watching and probably attempting to communicate with her - she has been working on and practicing a play that probably has a Sansa character in it telling her story in an unflattering light I'm sure - Arya's character is to be raped by a character playing her sister's vile twisted husband, something that may have happened to Sansa for all Arya knows - this play has the people who beheaded her father in it, who are on her all important "Prayer List" Cersei and Joffery who are most likely cast as heroes - and so on, and some feel that Arya is just running around carefree and giggling? So carefree that when she sees that one from the envoy's group, sent by the evil Lannister crew that has destroyed her family, just so happens to be another from her all important "Prayer List" that Arya thinks "the gods have given me a gift" that she is insincere and lacks empathy? Or that she is just some cackling monster in the shadows?

No, I bet Arya has been so tortured by all of the reminders of her family that it truly was a gift from the gods offering her a release before she did crack. The desire to kill Raff is so much beyond anything as blasé as vengeance, it is something beyond choice or reason, she has no control as it has become breath and life at this point, and the urge for some semblance of power is overwhelming. Arya needs to kill him, Arya can not wait to kill him, Arya can not lose her chance... it has to happen and can not be stopped anymore than an avalanche could be stopped. The fact that Arya also needed it to be played out in such a ritualistic fashion, reenacting Lommy's death exactly, just highlights her desperation for her family to me - no simple slash and run would or could appease the demons that have been haunting her. All through the Riverlands Arya tried so hard to help Lommy and in the end with Raff she was powerless to save him or any her family for that matter.

Yes, the whole chapter is sexualized but it all is done in a disturbing way, you are supposed to be disturbed left, right, up, down and sideways - it's intended to show another haunting layer of torture that Arya is enduring. Does that mean this is the Arya we will see from now on? Fat chance of that, sure if it's efficient in the moment we might see the femme fatale again but this was just the 'certain circumstances', 'done in the quickest way', 'utilizing her character' - 'against the specific target', he is a perv after all... it's all almost too pragmatic, really - because it just had to happen to ease Arya's emotional battles, cut the girl just a little slack here with her joy in the situation, that's a lot to deal with for even the most emotionally strong who are not undergoing major identity issues.

Some may compare Arya with Ramsey or Joffery but I've read an interview where Martin compares Arya with Theon/Reek in the emotional crisis department...

In this interview with Martin

It's been pointed out that a lot of characters in A Dance With Dragons are losing their names, and their very identities, as a result of intense circumstances. What's that about?

Arya has been doing it for some time, actually. Arya has gone through a dozen different identities, even getting to Braavos — where the ultimate goal of the Faceless Men is to become no-one, and to be able to assume identities as one assumes a suit of clothes. But yes, identity is one of the things that I'm playing with in this series as a whole, and in this particular book — what is it that makes us who we are? Is it our birth, our blood, our position in the world? Or something more integral to us? Our values our memories, et cetera.

Usually in a heroic fantasy series when someone loses their identity, you expect that to be followed by them regaining their selfhood in some dramatic way, or taking some heroic action that reasserts who they really are. Do you feel a responsibility to subvert that? Or play with that trope?

I'm certainly playing with it. There are different ways of assuming identities. Some of them I try to get at in books, and it's a little bit reflected in the chapter titles. In some cases, it's just someone putting on a mask. I mean Qwentyn Martell and his companions assume false names at several points during their journey from Dorne to Meereen. They assume different roles and different identities, but it never really affects who they are. When they're in private, they're still the people that they have always been. When you're dealing with Arya and what she's going through, or you're dealing with Theon... you're dealing with something much, much deeper there, where the original identity is being threatened or kind of broken down by one means or another, and maybe is in danger of being lost entirely.

[Mourneblade]

The problem is that even within ASOIAF morality, killing for pleasure or taking joy in killing is viewed as a sign of a deep moral failing. Otherwise, why would Sansa defend Ned by saying he never liked killing? Why wouldn't Ned, such a good man, like killing if it's not an immoral thing in ASOIAF? Why wouldn't he take pleasure in executing a man who has been adjudged worthy of execution, being a NW deserter? And yet he doesn't, because he's a good man, despite existing in the depraved ASOIAF world with its twisted morality.

No, he is not a good man anymore, he is a dead man. Due, in no small part, to his goodness and mercy. Do not get me wrong, I enjoyed Ned, but his values and honor were detrimental to his family and his own life within the setting. This point is hammered into us time and time again as paragons of Honor and Mercy end up maimed or dead in this war. Also, Sansa has never seen Ned kill anyone, her thoughts on this matter, are totally useless and naive, which was the whole point in the discussion with the Hound. We have no idea whether or not Ned would have enjoyed killing Jamie for tossing his son out a tower, for example, which is a more apples to apples comparison.

So far this story has shown us, honorable paragons, and merciful people are so at their own risk.

She can feel whatever she wants to feel, "gratification" or no. That she believed that he deserved to die doesn't make it any less monstrous, since she was under no order and no duty to kill him. Even the Hound of all people, someone else who took joy in killing, never killed except for necessity or on orders, and never sought someone out to lure them into an alley and kill them for personal reasons.

Motive is key when considering whether or not an act is moral or not. The Hound would have absolutely gutted Raff and enjoyed it just for how he idolized the Mountain.

That's a bit of a false choice, don't you think? Refusing to become a sadistic murderer is hardly "playing the victim" and one can empower oneself through other ways: compassion and refusal to descend to one's enemies' level by becoming as vicious and sadistic as they are, for one. And there are other characters in the books who, despite living in the same crapsack world with the same crapsack morality, do not respond to their trials by becoming sadistic murderers. Some of them--gasp!--even become better, kinder, more compassionate people as a result of their traumas, rather than using it as fuel for their basest desires and worst impulses. Jaime Lannister improves substantially as a human being after he loses a hand. Ellaria Sand begs for restraint instead of cheering on the Sand Snakes' lust for revenge, despite having lost the man she loved and the father of her children to the Lannister/Martell blood feud. And so on. Is Jaime "playing the victim"? Is Ellaria?

Compassion for ones enemies has proved time and time again in this story to be detrimental to ones own heath. Her learning to kill, in order to bring Justice to those who deserve it, or self preservation is the ultimate empowerment. There was nothing vicious in her killings, and the use of sadistic is a bit embellished and over dramatic in an attempt to prove you point... it misses.

I am so glad you mentioned our paragon of morality, the incestuous Jamie Lannister, who just a few POV's back threatened to fling a baby over the walls of Riverrun. While I agree with you that he is on a path of redemption, your pointing his morality out actually strengthens my argument, that the ends justify the means. I am glad we see eye to eye on this.

Ellaria does not want her children to die, however, put Ellaria, dagger in hand, and alone, in a room with Cersei Lannister, and you would have one dead Cersei IMHO.

See, the problem with that is that killing Dareon and Raff, by far her most disturbing acts to date, had nothing to do with survival. No one forced her to kill Dareon, nor to take his boots. She was even punished for doing so. Nor was she forced to kill Raff, let alone in that sadistic, ritualistic matter. She'll probably get in trouble for doing that, too. If anything, these acts jeopardized her survival, since she is currently dependent on the FM's goodwill. So "She had to do it to surviiiiive!" is an incredibly weak argument, since her worst acts had absolutely nothing to do with her survival or even necessity and everything to do with her own conscious, freely undertaken actions. They're the most conscious expression of her agency, and they're also the clearest expression of the depths to which she's descended, which tells you a lot about Arya's morality and which should tell you that "survival" and "necessity" are poor explanations for what she's become.

First off all legal executions are ritualistic by their very definition, so your use of that word does not emphasize anything. Killing Dareon was her duty as Lady of Winterfell, from her point of view her family is dead, she took no pleasure from this, and taking his boots was from a practical point of view, this happens quite a lot in war. She does not kill him for his boots, that is not her motive, but why waste good boots. Also she was promoted, and her training accelerated for killing Dareon, so I do not think that word means what you think it means. Again nothing remotely sadistic about Dareons death. As to Raff, see above the use of Sadistic, while technically correct, its use here is a bit over stated to make your argument sound more vile, it misses. Her path is more about justice and empowerment, than vengence or t.

Nope: murder's still a thing in Westeros, believe it or not. And even assuming that were true, there's a lot that's technically morally defensible by Westeros standards that the more moral ASOIAF characters find horrifying: the Hound's murder of Mycah (legal, since Mycah had supposedly attacked the prince, morally reprehensible to Ned and AGOT Arya) and his reaction to it, Tyrion marrying Sansa at 12 (legal, since Sansa had to marry at the king's command and had flowered, totally morally reprehensible and horrifying to Cat, Brienne, Robb, random courtiers, etc.), Aerys raping Rhaella (legal since marital rape is not a legal concept in Westeros, morally reprehensible to Jaime and others), etc. etc.

Yes Murder is still a thing, however, it is extremely defined by that particular setting and on whose orders and what not. Just as you and I agree on the rest of this paragraph, it is not exactly easy to to determine if things are right or wrong, or legal or a crime. It seems to be more based on the situation, who is dying, or being victimized, and what side they support, or whose orders. Welcome to a civil war torn uncivilized land that has lost its national moral compass, if it ever had one. I emphasize though that we agree here starting from the second sentence.

Basically she is not a monster yet, she could become one, there are signs, yes. It is not black or white though, even if you want to believe it is. Even the Actress playing Arya recently spoke to this very thing. She is not, at this moment, a robotic vengeance machine.

That said there will soon be a series of choices for Arya. She could end up the sociopathic homicidal sadistic cold blooded emotionally dead girl that you think she already is, or she can choose the alternative, which leaves her scarred, but wiser and empowered, with Ned's Moral code tempered with a reality of situation..

I choose to believe the latter, but only time will really tell.

[Newstar]

I reckon Arya dies or beats the foreshadowing by leaving an Arya corpse behind to fool the world and taking a new face/identity. I hope the latter.

I doubt very much GRRM's going to leave Arya twisting in the wind. I believe she'll be accounted for, whether she's dead or alive (although I'm confident she'll die for the reasons I stated).

although Arya did claim the title of monster herself in the Mercy chapter

This is true. This chapter really laid on the Arya/Tyrion parallels rather thick, didn't they? They do both do horrible things for purely personal reasons. They both used the traumas they experienced as fuel for their horrible actions, and they've both decided to pursue revenge regardless of what it will cost them.

Also I do not subscribe to "Arya is consumed by vengeance and justice, so it can be an excuse or defense"

Yeah. Some of the worst atrocities in the books were committed in the name of "vengeance" and "justice": the Red Wedding, for one. Vengeance or the pursuit of justice is hardly some noble gloss on a horrible act.

The more power Arya gains the more she wants to use it.

The problem with all of these motivations--vengeance, justice, or even pursuing her own empowerment--is that they're all purely personal reasons. Deciding her marks should die and then killing them serves some deep personal need of hers, whether it's vengeance or empowerment, something even the FM have unsuccessfully tried to teach her is wrong. Besides, ultimately it's the act that matters. Theon, to whom GRRM compares Arya, had his personal reasons for murdering the miller's boys, but he's ultimately a murderer of children and rightly condemned for it. Tyrion raped the Selhorys slave because he was wallowing in despair, but he's still a rapist. Arya has her own personal reasons for killing Raff, etc., and we can argue about what those reasons were, but that doesn't make her any less a remorseless and now sadistic killer, and nor do her reasons detract from the sadistic, ritualistic manner in which she performed her latest kill. It would be one thing if she killed her marks with a heavy heart and the greatest of reluctance, trying to make her kills as quick and painless as possible, but she's itching to kill Raff and is thrilled at the chance. Since GRRM has drawn the Arya/Theon parallel, it's not a stretch to wonder whether Arya is forever tarnished by virtue of her murders just as Theon is forever tarnished by his. Theon can never really redeem himself, although he gave it a shot in ADWD; the most he can hope for at this point is to die well. I wonder after the Mercy chapter whether the same will likely be true for Arya.

As for Dareon, it is true that the FM gave her mixed messages after she killed him. On the one hand, she was blinded, but on the other, her training was accelerated. Still, the point remains is that no one but no one forced her to kill Dareon or even suggested that she should kill Dareon, and that the KM lectured her for appointing herself god and deciding who should live and who should die. Her choice to kill Dareon was all on her, and in a narrative where Arya's had a lot of big choices taken from her and has spent a lot of time doing what she's told, that one of her few freely undertaken actions with no external compulsion or even suggestion is to lure a man into an alley, slit his throat, and take his boots says a lot about her.

As for the Mercy chapter, I'm not convinced Mercy's character in the Richard III knockoff play is supposed to be Sansa (Shae or some random serving girl seems more likely), and I'm not convinced Arya's "Mercy" persona is modeled after Sansa (it could just be the dead Mercy's personality, or Arya modeling the "Mercy" persona on Jeyne, who was more giggly and foolish than Sansa), but Arya does seem to be very detached. She really only comes alive when she sees Raff. While I'd like to believe that she's chasing revenge as a coping mechanism to get away from the uncomfortable implications of the play and the horrible reminders of her sister's supposed fate (rape at Tyrion's hands), and while that would be a neat bit of writing, there's just not enough in the chapter to support that interpretation. She treats her "rape" like a bit of a lark and chats lightly with Bobono about "Tyrion's" cock and "Tyrion" raping her. There's no hint of discomfort or trauma there, and the chapter really isn't written in a way to let us read that in. In Tyrion's TWOW chapter as released, he has a freakout where he gets lost in traumatic memories and realizes he came thisclose to attacking Penny as a way of snapping out of his horrible thoughts. GRRM certainly knows how to write that sort of episode, but he doesn't do anything like that with Arya where Arya buries herself in revenge to distract herself from reality. And even if she were experiencing some sort of traumatic episode as a result of the Richard III knockoff play, it's not as if she has absolutely no other option than to kill someone to deal with that trauma.

No, he is not a good man anymore, he is a dead man. Due, in no small part, to his goodness and mercy.

The point was that even in Westeros, with its twisted morality and warped values, taking joy in killing is viewed as a bad thing.

Do not get me wrong, I enjoyed Ned, but his values and honor were detrimental to his family and his own life within the setting. This point is hammered into us time and time again as paragons of Honor and Mercy end up maimed or dead in this war.

And people who give in to their worst impulses for personal reasons--lust, ambition, vengeance, sense of justice, etc.--are rightly painted as monstrous. Painting it as a zero-sum--either you become a remorseless, sadistic murderer in response to your experiences or you're a paragon of honour and mercy who will die--is a false dichotomy, since there are characters who respond to their traumas in ways other than becoming a remorseless, sadistic murderer who do not die as a result. Jaime and Ellaria are good examples.

We have no idea whether or not Ned would have enjoyed killing Jamie for tossing his son out a tower, for example, which is a more apples to apples comparison.

Ned took no pleasure in Rhaegar's death and was horrified by the murder of Rhaegar's wife and children, despite what Rhaegar did to Lyanna; Ned lacked Robert's abiding hatred of the Targaryens, despite what the Targaryens had done to his family. He was also horrified by seeing Aerys' dead body and always judged Jaime for breaking his vows and killing Aerys, even though Aerys was responsible for the murder of his father and brother and Ned should have been grateful to Jaime for killing him. We know that Ned did not enjoy executing the NW deserter and recoiled at the idea that anyone would: he specifically warned Bran that he must take no pleasure in performing executions. So it seems Sansa had the right of it.

Motive is key when considering whether or not an act is moral or not. The Hound would have absolutely gutted Raff and enjoyed it just for how he idolized the Mountain.

Except the Hound never sought someone out to kill them with no external compulsion or necessity, for all his fine talk about how awesome killing was, something which marks him apart from Arya. He'd gladly kill in a melee or a fight, or if ordered to do so, but he never sought someone out to kill them on his own initiative. Not once. The closest he came was jumping in to save Loras in AGOT, and he was defending someone there, something that hasn't been true of Arya's kills for a while.

Compassion for ones enemies has proved time and time again in this story to be detrimental to ones own heath.

Sansa has maintained her compassion for her enemies and she managed to survive in King's Landing, refusing to adopt the Hound or Cersei's callous, amoral worldview. By your logic, her throat should have been slit long ago, and yet, she lives. She and other characters give the lie to the idea that the only choices are becoming a remorseless, sadistic murderer or dying.

This is particularly true of Arya, since the kills which point to her becoming a remorseless, sadistic murderer--Raff and Dareon--had nothing to do with survival or necessity. She could have chosen not to kill them when the opportunity arose and that choice would have cost her nothing--certainly not her life--but she didn't.

Her learning to kill, in order to bring Justice to those who deserve it, or self preservation is the ultimate empowerment.

That doesn't make her any less of a remorseless, sadistic murderer, any more than Theon is any less a child killer for achieving his goals through murdering them,, or Tyrion is any less a rapist through dealing with his sorrows by raping a sex slave.

There was nothing vicious in her killings, and the use of sadistic is a bit embellished and over dramatic in an attempt to prove you point... it misses.

Sadistic is a good descriptor for her kill of Raff, and if you don't think it was vicious, you need to reread the chapter.

I am so glad you mentioned our paragon of morality, the incestuous Jamie Lannister, who just a few POV's back threatened to fling a baby over the walls of Riverrun.

He's not a paragon of morality, but he is someone in ASOIAF, with all its twisted morality, who used his trauma to find a path to become a better person--not a good person, of course, but a better person--and is still alive and kicking.

Ellaria does not want her children to die, however, put Ellaria, dagger in hand, and alone, in a room with Cersei Lannister, and you would have one dead Cersei IMHO.

Ellaria actually says the opposite. She asks "Where does it end?" (or words to that effect). Killing Cersei would only feed the cycle of revenge, as Cersei's children might seek revenge against the Martells, just as the Sand Snakes' desired revenge would lead to potential reprisals against the Martells. Ellaria's a good example of someone who has every reason to call for revenge when the Lannisters cost her the man she loved, but who is compassionate enough and smart enough to know that nothing good can come of it, no matter what her personal desires may be. She is also still alive and kicking; in fact, GRRM seems to be hinting that she will survive the rest of the revenge-obsessed Martells, since she's packing up her children and getting out of dodge while they brood on revenge plans that will likely get them killed. Ellaria is smart, not stupid; her compassion is a sign of her strength and her wisdom, not of her weakness. The Martells are the weak ones; Ellaria, who's wise enough to see the big picture and what revenge will cost the family, is the truly strong one.

Arya's pursuit of vengeance or "empowerment" and her decision to kill her targets at will aren't a sign of her strength; they're a sign of her weakness. It's easy to pursue revenge, to lash out and try to hurt as one has been hurt; the hard thing to do is to restrain those dark impulses because of what succumbing to them will cost you in the long run, and to channel those feelings into something good, something other than salving your feelings of anger and injustice through revenge.

Another good example of this is in AGOT. Arya's anger and sense of justice cannot abide the idea of standing by and letting Joffrey hurt Mycah, so she impulsively lashes out to protect him. If she had swallowed her personal feelings and let Joffrey go through with it (since he said he wouldn't hurt Mycah "much"), his ego would have been salved, and Mycah would still be alive. As it was, she set into motion a course of events that resulted in a long separation from Nymeria and Mycah's death. The easy, stupid thing was to lash out to protect Mycah because it was the "right thing," an action that resulted in his death. The hard, smart thing to do was to let Joffrey hurt Mycah to save Mycah's life and avoid escalating the situation. Arya was incapable of restraining herself because of her desire to do the right thing and to prevent an injustice, when the "right thing" would have been to permit a short-term humiliation and hurt to prevent a longer-term injustice (Mycah's death). As a result, she paid for her shortsighted rage for justice with a long-term injustice: Mycah's death.

TLDR:

If you think Arya's pursuit of killing her targets in the name of vengeance or "empowerment" makes her cool, strong or smart, you're deeply mistaken; it shows her to be pathetic, weak and stupid.

First off all legal executions are ritualistic by their very definition, so your use of that word does not emphasize anything.

Serial killers often kill in a ritualized, elaborate manner, something GRRM would be well aware of when detailing Arya's kill method for Raff. Serial killers and other predators also often lure their marks to a second location, something Arya has done twice. The introduction of ritual into Arya's kills seems deliberately designed to evoke that association (between Arya and serial killers).

Killing Dareon was her duty as Lady of Winterfell, from her point of view her family is dead, she took no pleasure from this

Nope. These arguments have been dealt with in many other Arya threads, so there's no point addressing them here, but yeah, this is nonsense.

Yes Murder is still a thing, however, it is extremely defined by that particular setting and on whose orders and what not.

Exactly! Arya did not kill Dareon or Raff by accident, out of self-defence, the need to defend others, necessity, or compulsion. Her motives were purely selfish and purely internally generated: pursuing vengeance, justice, or her own empowerment. No negative consequences would have attached to the decision to leave them be, other than her personal feelings being offended. She did it for no other reason than to serve her personal reasons, which is no justification for any immoral act involving another human being, let alone murder.

[Mourneblade]

You continue to bleed in your own personal and modern morals into this conversation. It makes it entirely impossible to discuss this from the abstract when you do this, and makes your points, within the context completely mute.

For example Tyrion, as defined within the context of the setting, has raped no one. Your use of the word wrongly within the context only exemplifies your inability to discuss these kinds of things abstractly. Also I still seem to get, not that you stated, Ty by the way, that if someone does not see or agree with your point of view they have a personal character flaw.

I have told you I agree with you from a modern civilized ethical standard, but until you can separate yourself from that to discuss this topic in the abstract and within context, then your opinion is muddled and little value to the discussion. Nor is it my opinion that you have lived in an uncivilized area of this world and seen the effects of war and its horrors first hand. I envy you that, but it allows you to have very black and white views, and this story is far from black and white.

Lol and bringing up how Sansa survived... Really... She survived only through her title, and her use as someone else's pawn, otherwise she was dead. Once she empowers herself, she will use that and people will die. She might not be the one doing the work, but her hands will be as bloody as Arya's.

Anyways you seem to have your point of view and that will not change nor are you willing to discuss this in abstract so no need to discuss anything with you further on this topic.

[blacken]

I know you now believe that GRRM is going to axe her. I get it, you really like Arya, cant blame you. Just understand the powers and outside magical influences on her character, and state of mind.

When thinking she wont come back, or she is destined for death, or she is acting weird about sex for her age, or killing too much etc, please remember she is not a normal 12 yo girl. Keep in mind the influence of the Wolf, and the influence of the Magical memories that those faces hold.

Ok so this supposed effect of wearing a face has been brought up by a couple of people as though it is factual. Happy to admit I may be mis-remembering (cannot for the life of me fine the Ugly Little Girl chapter in my book) but I'm pretty sure that there is no textual indication that, beyond experiencing some memories of the person's face when you first put it on for a few days, you are at all influenced by that person whilst wearing their face thereafter.

When Arya is wearing the ugly girl's face she does gain insight into how the girl died and scenes from her most recent past, but Arya doesn't take on any of the traits of the ugly girl except those which she creates to fulfill the ugly girl persona.

I get why people are saying that Arya is influenced by Mercy, because Arya refers to Mercy and what she is like in third person, but I interpreted this very much as Arya having created a personality for Mercy and being almost an observer of the Mercy persona she is using - something you would have to do in order to both immerse yourself in a character you need others to believe in whilst keeping a different self alive.

I understand that my interpretation could be wrong, but I'm just surprised that people are stating that Arya is influenced by the person who Mercy was as a definite thing when it seems to just be an interpretation as unfounded as mine.

With regard to fate, I think that Arya will eventually drop her kill list and get over the vengeance stuff to develop on a new path. So much more interesting that way. Would kind of be a bummer if George had no surprises up his sleeves for Arya.

I'm also more than happy to discuss Arya's blossoming lesbianism. :D

[Littlefinger's dagger]

Ok so this supposed effect of wearing a face has been brought up by a couple of people as though it is factual. Happy to admit I may be mis-remembering (cannot for the life of me fine the Ugly Little Girl chapter in my book) but I'm pretty sure that there is no textual indication that, beyond experiencing some memories of the person's face when you first put it on for a few days, you are at all influenced by that person whilst wearing their face thereafter.

--snipped--

I understand that my interpretation could be wrong, but I'm just surprised that people are stating that Arya is influenced by the person who Mercy was as a definite thing when it seems to just be an interpretation as unfounded as mine.

With regard to fate, I think that Arya will eventually drop her kill list and get over the vengeance stuff to develop on a new path. So much more interesting that way. Would kind of be a bummer if George had no surprises up his sleeves for Arya.

I'm also more than happy to discuss Arya's blossoming lesbianism. :D

Ok, an interesting point. I found it pretty compelling, but I do see there's support for the alternate idea that Arya's just used those memories and created a far more elaborate construction with Mercy than she tried to with the Ugly Girl. All that commentary is Arya's process for staying in character as an actor; Stanislavsky in a medieval setting, who would have guessed? Could go either way IMO, waiting eagerly to see more evidence. My opinions on the morality of Arya's actions aren't significantly affected, they never depended primarily on the face having an influence, but some of the odder thoughts going through her head were attributed that direction.

[Newstar]

When Arya is wearing the ugly girl's face she does gain insight into how the girl died and scenes from her most recent past, but Arya doesn't take on any of the traits of the ugly girl except those which she creates to fulfill the ugly girl persona.

This is a good point. There isn't really anything to hint at Mercy's character's origins being magical or sourced from the real, dead Mercy. I think Mercy's personality has more to do with Arya "getting into character" by designing "Mercy" as a girly, vapid girl who eats fruit and giggles a lot than anything particularly magical. It would be particularly poignant if she were modeling her take on the "Mercy" persona on Sansa, but it could just as easily be Jeyne Poole, which would provide a neat sort of symmetry: Jeyne trying to pass herself off as Arya, while Arya half a world away attempts to pass herself off as a version of Jeyne Poole.

With regard to fate, I think that Arya will eventually drop her kill list and get over the vengeance stuff to develop on a new path. So much more interesting that way.

It would be, wouldn't it? This tired vengeance stuff is so played. Arya abandoning her list and forming an identity based on something other than death, now that would be novel.

I'm also more than happy to discuss Arya's blossoming lesbianism. :D

I wouldn't take her lack of interest in Bobono or Raff as a sign of lesbianism. :D No, seriously, though, I assume you're referring to the romantic, er, attentive description of the Black Pearl? ("She was so lovely that the lamps seemed to burn brighter as she passed.") I just chalk it up to Arya being observant; she's observed handsome men before, too, and paid close attention (watching "the play of muscles" on Gendry as he works, for example).

[The Stags Man]

I find Arya's character very similar to Stannis in that they both hold justice above everything including honor, personal power, birth, and themselves. In addition to Justice being their defining characteristics they both have very little power compared to their enemies, Arya physically, Stannis with the smallest army in westerois yet they both still fight on and find ways to outdo their opponents. I would love to see these to characters meet; it might be like Jon and Stannis comedy hour x2

[Marillon]

"Sexual pleasure", that's a new one :lol:

[Mourneblade]

Ok so this supposed effect of wearing a face has been brought up by a couple of people as though it is factual. Happy to admit I may be mis-remembering (cannot for the life of me fine the Ugly Little Girl chapter in my book) but I'm pretty sure that there is no textual indication that, beyond experiencing some memories of the person's face when you first put it on for a few days, you are at all influenced by that person whilst wearing their face thereafter.

When Arya is wearing the ugly girl's face she does gain insight into how the girl died and scenes from her most recent past, but Arya doesn't take on any of the traits of the ugly girl except those which she creates to fulfill the ugly girl persona.

I get why people are saying that Arya is influenced by Mercy, because Arya refers to Mercy and what she is like in third person, but I interpreted this very much as Arya having created a personality for Mercy and being almost an observer of the Mercy persona she is using - something you would have to do in order to both immerse yourself in a character you need others to believe in whilst keeping a different self alive.

I understand that my interpretation could be wrong, but I'm just surprised that people are stating that Arya is influenced by the person who Mercy was as a definite thing when it seems to just be an interpretation as unfounded as mine.

With regard to fate, I think that Arya will eventually drop her kill list and get over the vengeance stuff to develop on a new path. So much more interesting that way. Would kind of be a bummer if George had no surprises up his sleeves for Arya.

I'm also more than happy to discuss Arya's blossoming lesbianism. :D

While I do not subscribe to this, it is very possible you are correct. I can see an actor working like this to better be "in character". So awesome suggestion.

Here is why I feel this is not the case, or better yet, not the main reason. While she might have seen woman flirting, or using their sexual wares to manipulate men, it would be a difficult leap that she would be able to pull it off so easily and smoothly, like this is nothing new to her. No biting her lip, or working through doubts, just done like a true professional. I am sure she is working at being in character, but imagine what kind of performance an actor could achieve if they actually had memories of the character they were portraying.

I just feel that the side effects of face wearing is that you end up with so many memories that you truly become no one, as it eventually clouds a FM's true past memories.

But anyone who truly doubts how much Nymeria's influence is, should honestly re read her escape from Harrenhal chapter... Just wow.