Arya is justice.

[Darksnider05]

I don't think Arya is dangerous. A tiger is dangerous - it could kill anybody, at any time, for any reason. Arya seems quite different. Don't be a conspicuous evildoer and Arya will pose no danger to you.

As for your bit about her being superficial, that's apologetics. It misses the point of justice and is unjust in and of itself. Without stating my own politics (which are too complicated to explain here), I'm reminded of the PC liberal insistence on seeing every death row inmate as a victim. But they aren't victims - they're cruel murderers and rapists, often enough. Who cares what pressures they were under? There's nothing 'superficial' (if we're using that as a criticism) about saying, "This man did this and this and this - therefore he must pay with his life." There IS something horribly unjust about saying "This and this and this" were working against the man, put him in a bad situation, and so we must absolve him of his evil acts and blame society or circumstance. Arya isn't hearing that, and neither am I. You desert, you die. You murder an innocent, you die. You rape, you die. I think her views of justice are STARK, like her name, but no less sophisticated for all that - she could teach the modern PC liberals a thing or 20.

I would also take issue with the idea that Arya is wild. Her wildness and impulsiveness have been brought up repeatedly in this thread - for her age, she's quite the opposite. Arya is very together.

Watching her grow more disciplined throughout the books has been a real treat.

[Lykos]

Batman (a little younger than Arya)

Thank you drawkcabi, it cheered me up.

[Errant Bard]

I don't understand the Batman references, I really don't. Batman does not kill, he does not work for the league of assassins, he draws attention rather then pretending to be a nobody, his targets are left for justice to process once he catches them, his targets are people who break the law, not people he does not like, he is not fueled by revenge (as in: not growing stronger to murder the shit out of a list of people,) and, again, he does not kill. They are like polar opposites.

[Lykos]

Sorry EB, that I picked up on that. I only knew Batmen as a popular example for vigilante justice, if he just apprehends suspects and turns them over for a fair trial it was completely out of place. The last time I read a Batman comic was when I was ten years old visiting the barbershop Iof my choice, that had the justice league comics and Mort & Phil ( Clever & Smart in german )comics. I preferred the latter of the other I was only interested in the Green Lantern, for some reason.

[Lord Reaver]

Indeed. At the very core of Batman is precisely the struggle to avoid simply being "vengeance". For more in-depth analysis, read e.g Batman: Year two, in which the caped crusader has his parents' killer in his sight, yet struggles with the decision to kill him. In "The new 52" he consciously decides NOT to kill him, judging that Wayne Sr. wouldn't have wanted him to.

We see no such struggle in Arya, she kills without a moments hesitation, without consideration, without thought. She isn't Batman, she's anti-batman, she's what Batman would have become if he wasn't a hero, but a villain instead.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Or inversely, Arya would be Batman if she was a comic book character.

[Errant Bard]

Sorry EB, that I picked up on that. I only knew Batmen as a popular example for vigilante justice

Ah I see. Well, there is vigilante justice, and there is vigilante justice... But even with someone as extreme as the Punisher, I'm not really seeing Arya fit the name of "vigilante": that implies administering (your own) justice outside of the law, it works for people such as the Tickler or Dareon or even Weese, but it does not work for the Harrenhal guard or the insurance man. I am thoroughly unconvinced.

Or inversely, Arya would be Batman if she was a comic book character.

X-23 or Hit-Girl, more likely, even Cassandra Cain is a saint compared to Arya.

(The argument seems weird anyway, comics are ripe with vigilantes who do actually choose to kill, a lot of little girls too, even if none work for an assassins' guild. Makes as much sense as saying Jaqen would be Superman if he was a comics books character.)

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Oh, I'm not commenting on morals. My point was that usually, heroes are created by animating the snapshot of a heroic moment. Real life heroes (there exist some) are real people and have their bad moments, unpleasent sides and so on. Some of them are not nice at all in a personal level. ASOIAF heroes and anti-heroes tend to be more in line with this.

On the contrary, traditional comic heroes are one-sided and they have to be so, as they used to be tales mainly for children, not only for entertainment but also to educate them in morality.

corrected some spelling errors

[Lykos]

EB, I conceded a similarity insofar as they both were acting outside the law in this sentence.

...,so when she kills a deserter of the Night´s Watch she is acting outside the law (Yes, like Batman).

The comic, I linked just for fun.

[Errant Bard]

Oh, I'm not commenting on morals. My point was that usually, heroes are created by animating the snapshot of a heroic moment. Real life heroes (there exist some) are real people and have their bad moments, unpleasent sides and so on. Some of them are not nice at all in a personal level. ASOIAF heroes and anti-heroes tend to be more in line with this.

On the contrary, traditional comic heroes are one-sided and they have to be so, as they used to be tales mainly for children, not only for entertainment but also to educate them in morality.

You are referring to a pretty small subset of all actual comics then, that is: the bad ones and the children ones.

Any good comics will have as much complexity as ASOIAF, both are works of fiction that can reflect more than a "snapshot" and have actual characters instead of cardboard cutouts... and this makes it even odder to have Arya touted as Batman, as good, more fitting alternatives of complex heroes do exist.

I don't know if it's an insult to comics quality and diversity, an overhyping of ASOIAF's complexity, or a misreading of Arya's defining ("snapshot") trait being her will to bring miscreants to justice, or all three, that you're doing here.

EB, I conceded a similarity insofar as they both were acting outside the law in this sentence.

I understand, sorry for not being clear, but it wasn't just you bringing up Batman in the thread, and the comparison was done to make her into something she is not, in an attempt to imply that vigilantism is all the same so what Batman does makes what Arya does OK, because, hey, it's the same. (of course I disagree that what Arya does is vigilantism as much as I disagree killing is the same as not killing.)

[Peter George Stewart]

I don't see here as impulsive, merely opportunistic. She sees a chance a justice and seizes it.

Bingo. "Impulsive" is definitely a mischaracterization at this stage, even if it was somewhat accurate at the beginning of the story. She deliberates her actions quite a lot and becomes less and less of an impulsive wee girl as time goes on. But she's definitely, 100% an opportunist.

I could dig the idea of her arc being a turn to the Dark Side, but I doubt it's the case, she's always going to be an agent of Justice. Dark justice, but justice nonetheless.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

You are referring to a pretty small subset of all actual comics then, that is: the bad ones and the children ones.

Any good comics will have as much complexity as ASOIAF, both are works of fiction that can reflect more than a "snapshot" and have actual characters instead of cardboard cutouts... and this makes it even odder to have Arya touted as Batman, as good, more fitting alternatives of complex heroes do exist.

I don't know if it's an insult to comics quality and diversity, an overhyping of ASOIAF's complexity, or a misreading of Arya's defining ("snapshot") trait being her will to bring miscreants to justice, or all three, that you're doing here.

I was referring to Batman, whom I find childish and simplistic.

I agree that it's a bad comparison. I was trying to say that if Arya was a comic character of the Batman type she would be all about justice or all about revenge or something and she wouldn't have any controversial sides/actions at all.

[Lykos]

Bingo. "Impulsive" is definitely a mischaracterization at this stage, even if it was somewhat accurate at the beginning of the story. She deliberates her actions quite a lot and becomes less and less of an impulsive wee girl as time goes on. But she's definitely, 100% an opportunist.

I could dig the idea of her arc being a turn to the Dark Side, but I doubt it's the case, she's always going to be an agent of Justice. Dark justice, but justice nonetheless.

I would call it abusing techniques of civilasation to carry out her impulse to kill that she had to postpone since physically she wasn´t a wolf, she lacked the power - she felt like a mouse. I would hate that too, but this conflation of taking only the part of civilsation that suits your ends is the root of all evil in my view. The Ironborn do it and the Dothraki in another way and the emphasis on the martial prowess in Westeros is another example, though at least in theory there are the rules of knighthood to protect the weak. If you call it opportunism, fine with me.

EB, I just wanted to clarify that I didn´t want to compare Arya to Batman, just one aspect of one of her killings. Since I picked this example and followed up with an uncommented link after the previous comparisons were allready refuted by The Sullen Sellsword.

Terrible comparison, if anything, she's Ellen Page's character from Hard Candy.

[Peter George Stewart]

I would call it abusing techniques of civilasation to carry out her impulse to kill that she had to postpone since physically she wasn´t a wolf, she lacked the power - she felt like a mouse. I would hate that too, but this conflation of taking only the part of civilsation that suits your ends is the root of all evil in my view. The Ironborn do it and the Dothraki in another way and the emphasis on the martial prowess in Westeros is another example, though at least in theory there are the rules of knighthood to protect the weak. If you call it opportunism, fine with me.

EB, I just wanted to clarify that I didn´t want to compare Arya to Batman, just one aspect of one of her killings. Since I picked this example and followed up with an uncommented link after the previous comparisons were allready refuted by The Sullen Sellsword.

I don't know what you mean by "taking the part of civilization that suts your ends". The Faceless Men are part of that culture, that civilization, they have a venerated place, she's joining in with that. Because it suits her. But that's not impulsive, it's opportunistic, and it's not evil in terms of the book's general attitude.

She's in danger of turning to the Dark Side, yes, absolutely, she's constantly in danger of it, and that's part of what makes her arc interesting. But I think it's highly unlikely that she will, and I don't think her turning into a living weapon of Justice or Vengeance amounts to that; neither justice nor vengeance are considered evil in terms of the book, only really causing gratuituous suffering, attaining your ends regardless of your actions' effects on others, killing innocents, etc., etc., are really thought of as evil, and she's not aiming in that direction, even if she's sometimes on a knife edge of the possibility of it. On the contrary, she's on the arc of visiting heavy justice precisely on those who do that sort of thing, and it would be twisting concepts too much (or too morally relativist, even for GRRM) to call that "evil".

[Elaena Targaryen]

Good grief. Arya has no concept of strategic killing, or conscience about the consequences. I'm not really condemning her for it - she is absolutely the product of the world she was thrown into when most girls are still playing with dolls, and many of her kills have been in "her or them" situations. But that doesn't make her planned kills any less self-motivated or her consideration for the fate of others any greater.

Chiswyck was a slimeball, yes. But wasting one of her three kills on someone who meant very little in the grand scheme of things, when she could have used all three and made a great deal of positive difference, was just ridiculous. There are hundreds more Chiswycks - such as rhe huge group surrounding him who thought his story was so hilarious.

Weese was personal revenge, plain and simple. She wasn't sitting around thinking "wow, the other servants here sure would be better off without Weese." He hit her, she got mad, and she sicced Jaqen on him. End of story.

And she did not go to Jaqen to help free the northmen for their sakes - she did it for her own, because she assumed they would be able to help her get out of Harrenhal. If the group in the dungeon had been Stannis's troops she wouldn't have given them a second thought.

If she had been thinking on a mature and global scale, she'd have packed Jaqen off to KL instantly with instructions to kill Tywin, Joff and Cersei. That couldn't happen because it kind of would have ended the series (or severely crippled it) but nonetheless, that's what she would have done if she were not acting impulsively and with herself in the present moment being her primary concern.

It never really crosses her mind to worry that Jaqen could be caught or killed in carrying out her kills, especially the last request. When she makes her escape from Harrenhal, she thinks about what they will do to the boy who gives her the horses, then shrugs it off. She kills the guard - who is doing nothing but guarding, and at the time is in Roose Bolton's employ (still to her knowledge one of her brother's own bannermen).

When she is given her first assignment for the FM, her first bright idea is to kill not only the target (against whom she has nothing, not even any proof of wrongdoing on his part) but also one of his guards just for being in the way.

It's not hard to understand what made her what she is, and those events were not her fault. But what she's become is still extremely not good.

I believe Martin's intention with Jaqen owing Arya three kills was a play on the Genie/three wishes troupe, the whole be careful what you wish for thing, or at least that's one perspective to the 'why' she chose as she did.

The first wish is usually made in haste or as a test since the wisher does not believe the wish will actually be granted. - "But she didn't think she should trust Jaqen. I should kill them myself."

The second wish is normally made with great care, greed or trickery in mind but the wish can alternately be made as flawed or shallow where it brings the wisher misery. - "These were the men who mattered, the ones she ought to have killed.. Lord Tywin, why didn't I say Lord Tywin?"

The third and last wish must finally elicit some gain in the wishers eyes but it will almost always backfire, (or you can free the Genie) - Weasel Soup not only backfired where she regrets it but the wish was also wasted since the Bloody Mummers were changing allegiances anyway

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

Arya's relationship with death thread would be a good reference but Arya's story has been about death from the very beginning. It was there before she got to the FM and it will be there even if she leaves.

I read comments that say she needs to give up revenge and go back to her siblings so she can go back to being Arya Stark. She is Arya Stark now. This is who Arya is now. This is what she does. She is a cold-blooded killer. That does not make her not Arya Stark. It just means that the reader needs a reality check if they haven't got one already imo. Besides, having the power to kill and hiding behind masks didn't break Jaqen or Varys.

....

I don't have a problem with it at all. In fact a villain origin story is very agreeable to me. I have no problem with reading about the wolf who mercilessly devours the lamb.

My thoughts exactly. I really don't have a problem with how Arya is including how she is in the Mercy chapter. Like you said I totally dig the idea of Arya being the wolf that devours the lamb. The only issue I have is if Arya becomes a vicious murderer like Ramsay or the Mountain who preys on totally innocent people (I don't consider Dareon innocent or even the guard who was blocking her escape from Harrenhal) because I think that is fundamentally inconsistent with her character.

Even in the Mercy chapter Arya shows that she still loves interacting with common folk and she states that she would miss the mummers and her cover as Mercy

Still I have no problem with Arya becoming even darker than she is now.

Hell, nothing about his life past bedding the Rowan girl is close to being "Justice".

I don't want to get into an argument about this (mostly because there is already a thread on it) but the only person who says that he is innocent is Dareon himself. We have no way of knowing if he really didn't rape the Rowan girl.

[Sullen]

I don't want to get into an argument about this (mostly because there is already a thread on it) but the only person who says that he is innocent is Dareon himself. We have no way of knowing if he really didn't rape the Rowan girl.

Considering how poorly the smallfolk are valued in Westeros compared to the nobility, how quickly they can get murdered/executed by their overlords, and the extreme gravity of Dareon's crime, I can say that it is more than likely that he wouldn't have simply been sent to the Wall if he really raped the daughter of Lord Rowan as he has been accused of.

Hell, I don't even see Ned giving him the option to take the Black if he had raped Sansa or Arya, and Ned is as honourable as lords go.

[Lykos]

If you look at Dareon´s character it´s highly likely he seduced the daughter of Lord Rowan and we haven´t seen him use force to engage into sexual actions. I´m uncertain how the legal situation really is in Westeros and there is a grey area often enough what constitutes rape in different legal systems. For example look at the case of Thomas Malory , the author of Le Morte d'Arthur.

At this period, however, a charge of rape could also apply to consensual sex with a married woman whose husband had not agreed to the liaison

However, I see a strong possibillity that consent was withdrawn by the girl at some point and he carried on anyway, just like Julian Assange is charged with rape for not using a condom as he was asked to.

I don't know what you mean by "taking the part of civilization that suts your ends". The Faceless Men are part of that culture, that civilization, they have a venerated place, she's joining in with that. Because it suits her. But that's not impulsive, it's opportunistic, and it's not evil in terms of the book's general attitude.

<snip>.

Civilization is to me the cooperation of a larger group of people beyond the clan system, it incorporates the division of labour, a system of administration and set of rules - laws and ethics - the group abides by.

Arya doesn´t abide by the rules, she makes her own.

Now imagine there is another kid that is exactly like Arya, say a daughter of a female merchant that merchant strives to make a living and finds solace and joy in Dareon´s singing and one day Tagganaro or another of Arya´s friends steals her weekly earnings. This girl kills Tagganaro for this crime as it endangered her mother´s livelyhood. Now Arya will want to kill this girl, but she has the same right to kill Arya for killing Dareon.

Now imagine all people acting like Arya! That´s what I call evil.

My problem with calling Arya opportunistic is that, when applied to human behaviour, it fits exactly the abuse of rules that I described except for the selfish intention that I don´t want to attribute to Arya´s behaviour as I see it similar to you, that Arya is struggling internaly with her longing for power, she feels when killing, and the need to justify those killings.

She doesn´t understand the consequences and therefore doesn´t see the sense in the rules of the faceless men or any rules other than her own.

[Melisandros Megas]

Ramsay is justice, Arya is just...well, whatever she is at the time.

[The Sleeper]

I have the feeling we are talking at cross purposes, I´m not denying that Arya is incredibly disciplined and physically enduring for her age. You even made me wonder wether impulsive is the right word, but look at the synonyms and antonyms for impulsive and tell me Arya´s temperament doesn´t rather fall into the impulsive category . She has to force herself to be calm, heedful, cautious and considering, it is not her nature.

ETA: Also, I don´t regard her level of impulsiveness as a bad thing, I just feel that it helps to explain her killings, which were, as opposed to her death wishes, mostly not impulsive per se but some seem to me as if she had to act out some pent-up violence. :dunno:

While she his impulsive moments I wouldn't call it a defining trait. If anything impulsive moments are becoming fewer and further between as the series progresses. I'd rather call her overtly emotional and he has learned to repress like a champ.

To get back to the actual issue, I made a compilation of her kills, in order to gain some perspective. There does not seem to be any dominant pattern emerging but rather many small ones. Many of her kills and particularly, the early ones came about from confrontations Arya did not initiate and involve self defense. The stable boy in King's Landing and the casualties in the holdfast obviously fall in this category. To some extent this applies to Weese as he did not hesitate to inflict grievous bodily harm and it is implied that his charges did not last long under him. Most interesting is that Oliver and the Tickler fall in this category as well. In that scene Arya wanted t escape and was at on the verge of panic, which went beyond her rational assessment that she was in danger and reflected her deep-rooted terror of the Tickler.

Two other of her kills involved the pursuit of a practical goal. The guard at Harrenhal and the insurance salesman in Braavos fall in that category. The former was killed in order for her to escape Harrenhal and the latter in order to escape Harrenhal and the latter to advance within the FM. Weese falls in that category as well as she gained considerable freedom of movement after his death.

The rest are kills she actively pursued and from which she didn't gain any immediate personal benefit. These would be Chiswyck, Weese, the weaselsoup incident and Dareon. One notices immediately that out of the four the three were performed by Jaqen H'gar and the motivation in all cases were different. Chiswyck was the most impulsive one and despite the fact that he WS on her list, it is clear that the reason she sent Jaqen after him was outrage at his fond recollection of his participation in a gang rape. I have included Weese in all categories, frankly because she had every reason to have him killed. He was a petty tyrant who terrorised and brutalised his charges.

The weaselsoup incident is a special case because it is Arya's only attempt so far to intervene in the larger picture, with mixed results. Despite its success there were several results Arya was not happy with. She found herself allied with some very unsavoury people, there were unintended deaths and while her own position improved, it wasn't the salvation she might have expected. Quite the lesson in politics, in fact.

Dareon, is a special case because, he wasn't part of her list, had done no personal harm to her, she was not in any danger from him and she didn't have anything to gain from his death. Which is the reason it is one of her kills that is most debated.

Her list is a map of the most traumatic events in her life. Mycah's death, the slaughter in the Red Keep, her father's execution, Harrenhal and with the inclusion of the unnamed Freys, the Red Wedding. Aside from that the pattern that emerges is that it involves events in which she was involved or witnessed and the people included are responsible for the deaths or insults to herself or people she was associated with. The insults involve the theft of the bull helm by Dunsen and Needle by Poliver. These were more the objects to the possessed them and taking them involved removing part of their identity and subduing their will. As these things happened to Arya's people she takes these things personally and the absence of other individuals who have done as bad or worse can only be attributes to the fact that Arya WS not directly involved or witnessed in these cases. One explanation is the child's perspective Arya has. The other is that Arya feels personal responsibility for these things taking place as indicated by her reactions during her father's execution and the Red Wedding as well as her guilt over Mycah's death. The list represents Arya's weakness and her perceived failures.

One pattern that is discernible in her kills is that she doesn't or didn't go out other way to pursue her list. Her priority is survival. Aside from practical concerns Arya spent the greater part of the series terrified and this took precedent over pursuing her goals. Jaqen H'gar was instrumental in a fundamental development in Arya's character. During the period where she was at her most powerless, he offered her the opportunity to act for concerns beyond immediate survival. She used that opportunity to avenge a hideous crime, to get her personal tyrant of her back and to further the Stark cause. She was in the process empowered by death. While killing the Tickler and retrieving Needle she faced her greatest terror and resumed part of her identity.

Dareon is sort of culmination. She is killed under her own power using her own skills, for breaking a law her father upheld (and for being a dick to people she liked).

Arya seeks in her own limited and occasionally misguided, highhanded way to redress wrongs done and to achieve restitution to the victim, restoring power to herself for her weakness to rise to the defense of people she saw victimised, therefore restoring some sort of order in her personal world. These are the fundamentals of justice.