Arya's Future?

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

Regarding the psychopath remarks - hello, please read up on that condition

Yes, lack of empathy and callousness is a feature of psychopaths. But so are narcissism, shallow affect, and envy everyone else for having something, selfishness and patholical lying features of the psychopath. They do what they do to feel they have one over someone else, because they can. Even when she's completely devoid of emotions, Mercy shows no narcissism or selfishness. Dissociation from emotions and identity is not what makes a psychopath - having a different, abnormal functioning brain does... and that's genetic + lack of development as a child of what is low or lacking to begin with. Psychopaths don't give a rats ass about anybody's boundaries and they have no values whatsoever (they only talk values for mask reasons). They're sharks and love playing games. They're the ones who make two best friends fight and beat each other up, just for the fun of it. They're the ones you show a regular everyday pen to, lay it on the table and challenge to try and acquire it. Their eyes will immediately lit up like wildfire and they'll have this smug smile that shows they're thinking, I'll get it. I have an ex who's a psychopath, and Arya isn't one, nor becoming one... not in the Mercy chapter, nor when she kills Dareon.

Arya's never been without empathy or a rich emotional life. She's not narcisistic, not a pathological liar and not selfish either. She functions according to inner moral values and she respects personal boundaries with everyone, except her targets of course. Any human being is able to choose to shut off their empathy in certain circumstances. Just ask those who hit the buttons in the execution chambers on death row, or a soldier or his commander deciding who and where to attack. When you walk the street and pass by a homeless guy holding a cup for money, and you walk past him without giving him a glance, you're choosing to shut off your empathy and you won't feel guilty or ashamed over it either. It doesn't make any of these people or you a psychopath. It means you're pragmatic. We can't be empathic all the time with everyone even in normal circumstances, or we'd have no energy, no time, no money to survive ourselves left. Arya has no empathy for her targets and feels no guilt for them, because that would disable her from doing her job or deliver justice. But she's helpful and empathic with everyone else, and not to hide a pscyhopathic identity.

As for the word "psycho". Psycho =/= psychopath. A psycho is someone who's delusional and seeing and hearing things that aren't there. Completely two different disorders.

:agree: Of all Ned and Cat's children, the one who is most like her mother is Arya. I can't believe I didn't see it before my current re-read, but it's there. Sansa shares her mother's appearance and acceptance of "traditional" feminine things. But Catelyn is also proud, strong, generous, loyal and has a keen sense of justice which can turn toward vengeance (hello, Lady Stoneheart).

GRRM has written Arya's Braavos chapters so carefully, too. While running away from KL, Arya had to outwardly assume alternate identities. In Braavos, in order to become a FM, Arya has to totally assume these identities. She's not succeeding, she's still Arya Stark, but her time abroad serves a purpose in her character's development that actually parallels her brothers and sister (Jon's brush with and/or actual death and possible warging into Ghost, Bran learning the weirnet, Sansa as Alayne). The pack is dispersed, but not forever. And Arya's still very much part of it.

[SacredOrderOfGreenMen]

Regarding the psychopath remarks - hello, please read up on that condition

Yes, lack of empathy and callousness is a feature of psychopaths. But so are narcissism, shallow affect, and envy everyone else for having something, selfishness and patholical lying features of the psychopath. They do what they do to feel they have one over someone else, because they can. Even when she's completely devoid of emotions, Mercy shows no narcissism or selfishness. Dissociation from emotions and identity is not what makes a psychopath - having a different, abnormal functioning brain does... and that's genetic + lack of development as a child of what is low or lacking to begin with. Psychopaths don't give a rats ass about anybody's boundaries and they have no values whatsoever (they only talk values for mask reasons). They're sharks and love playing games. They're the ones who make two best friends fight and beat each other up, just for the fun of it. They're the ones you show a regular everyday pen to, lay it on the table and challenge to try and acquire it. Their eyes will immediately lit up like wildfire and they'll have this smug smile that shows they're thinking, I'll get it. I have an ex who's a psychopath, and Arya isn't one, nor becoming one... not in the Mercy chapter, nor when she kills Dareon.

Arya's never been without empathy or a rich emotional life. She's not narcisistic, not a pathological liar and not selfish either. She functions according to inner moral values and she respects personal boundaries with everyone, except her targets of course. Any human being is able to choose to shut off their empathy in certain circumstances. Just ask those who hit the buttons in the execution chambers on death row, or a soldier or his commander deciding who and where to attack. When you walk the street and pass by a homeless guy holding a cup for money, and you walk past him without giving him a glance, you're choosing to shut off your empathy and you won't feel guilty or ashamed over it either. It doesn't make any of these people or you a psychopath. It means you're pragmatic. We can't be empathic all the time with everyone even in normal circumstances, or we'd have no energy, no time, no money to survive ourselves left. Arya has no empathy for her targets and feels no guilt for them, because that would disable her from doing her job or deliver justice. But she's helpful and empathic with everyone else, and not to hide a pscyhopathic identity.

As for the word "psycho". Psycho =/= psychopath. A psycho is someone who's delusional and seeing and hearing things that aren't there. Completely two different disorders.

I want to spam the entire forum with this (and add in some key quotes to make it really friggin' clear)

[Roose on the Loose]

Arya's death is foreshadowed all over the text. While the often cited Jon quote would seem to hint at Arya's death, so do many others.

Syrio: You are a dead girl.

Hound: Don't you know you're dead?

Ned: The lone wolf dies,

Jamie: I promised Lady Stark her daughters back and one of them is alive. (Sansa)

Ghost of High Heart: I see you. I see you, wolf child. Blood child. I thought it was the lord who smelled of death ... You are cruel to come to my hill, cruel. I gorged on grief at Summerhall, I need none of yours. Begone from here, dark heart. Begone!

I think I'm missing a few. But she drinks from a river with dead bodies floating around, and eats an apple from a tree that has men hanging from it.

Death aside, Arya's fate is clearly foreshadowed in GOT.

Sansa: You should marry Hodor.

Cat: I think she (Arya) must be dead too.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

As for the word "psycho". Psycho =/= psychopath. A psycho is someone who's delusional and seeing and hearing things that aren't there. Completely two different disorders.

Well that is not true. There is no disorder that is called psychopathy.

[NorthGirl]

I will just say on FM issue, anyone who thinks Arya is no longer Arya (especially if you've read the Mercy chapter) needs to take a class in reading comprehension. Not trying to insult anybody but when info is given to you by the author in the text, ignoring it because you want to see the character in a different light is just not conducive to discussion. There are thousands of things that are open to interpretation in ASOIAF, Arya being unable to let go of who she is really not that debatable based on the text. It's just not. I also roll my eyes when people act like she's a serial killer on a rampage. Except for the killing of the tickler, she's particularly self-possessed. I mean, the girl doesn't add Freys to her list until she can find out who exactly was involved pretty much sums up what kind of avenger she is. Mission oriented and doesn't take pleasure in her kills, which somehow people have managed to turn into being more evidence that she's gone psycho.

I find some of the posts on this thread excusing Arya's killings to be truly frightening. I love Arya and I want her to get home, get better and live, but she is a truly problematic and deeply troubled character. GRRM doesn't write easy characters. The "good" guys in GoT - Arya, Tyrion, Dany - have been written to become gradually more and more challenging/gray. We know they have a core of goodness and compassion, but they do terrible stuff. It's like excusing the captain of the football team for killing random people because he's a sports hero who had a troubled life. It's just not that simple.

To say that Arya is a perfect special snowflake who has the right to judge/kill people, without remorse, is just so strange and terrible. As an Arya fan, I love her because she is so challenging. So, for me, to excuse the evil stuff she has done is to dismiss/over-simplify/misread her.

:agree: She is a tough, troubled character living in a tough, troubled world. Either you can like her anyway or you can't. But to pretend like all of her actions are perfectly moral and virtuous is just untrue.

On the other hand, she didn't witness Dareon doing anything evil or the stable boy or the insurance salesman. Were they jerks? Yes. But if the Tickler or the Mountain had killed them instead, would we find their deaths so easy to forget/forgive? I doubt it. Because we mourn for the people who the Tickler/Mountain kill because we know those two are evil killers.

However, Arya challenges us in ways that are often troubling and difficult. We've known her since she was a little girl living in Winterfell just struggling to be approved of by her mother/Septa and wanting to be free/able to live without gender constraints. However, after 2 1/2 years, she has become a very different character with the heart of that little girl still inside her. Who is Arya? Why did GRRM bring her to the "Faceless" Men? How do we understand justice and killing and revenge? These are the troubling questions that make her a great character. :bowdown:

I like that position and it is one I embrace. Although the stable boy (he was about to try and get her back to Cersei) was self defence and it seemed like it was almost not on purpose and more of a lucky (for her) stab.

What I always like about the character is that she doesn't really try to even convince herself/others that she is doing the objective "right" thing. She clearly is following her own guidelines and there is no pretence of righteousness. She doesn't like killing, she likes fighting and after her family starts dropping like flies, she seeks revenge of an equal magnitude. She doesn't kill willy-nilly and feels the need to determine why she thinks it's "okay" to kill someone. She doesn't have the authority to dispense justice but she has suffered/witnessed injustices and feels compelled to do what she can to even the scores. She knows that what she's doing is wrong, that's why she is scared of seeing her family but that's the path she chose and at least it's hers. It's not right or ethical but it's certainly compelling. I will admit that I never subscribed to the idea that she was purposely channelling Ned when killing Daeron. I think that was to show her starting to trivialise murder if she can tick the boxes. George doesn't present it as righteous or good, it just is what it is.

Arya's death is foreshadowed all over the text. While the often cited Jon quote would seem to hint at Arya's death, so do many others.

Syrio: You are a dead girl.

Hound: Don't you know you're dead?

Ned: The lone wolf dies,

Jamie: I promised Lady Stark her daughters back and one of them is alive. (Sansa)

Ghost of High Heart: I see you. I see you, wolf child. Blood child. I thought it was the lord who smelled of death ... You are cruel to come to my hill, cruel. I gorged on grief at Summerhall, I need none of yours. Begone from here, dark heart. Begone!

I think I'm missing a few. But she drinks from a river with dead bodies floating around, and eats an apple from a tree that has men hanging from it.

Death aside, Arya's fate is clearly foreshadowed in GOT.

Sansa: You should marry Hodor. :thumbsup:

Cat: I think she (Arya) must be dead too.

Arguably, in terms of degrees of attachment to their "Starkness", Sansa is the lone wolf. She doesn't warg, she lost her wolf and spent the most time with her family's enemies having to learn their ways to survive. Arya is the only Stark's whose wolf literally has a giant wolf pack. Also, she keeps getting new packs in her travels. She is the antithesis of a lone wolf.

I am always hesitant to call something "foreshadowing" in this series. If anything, all those references give off more the vibe of her and death being entwined than anything else. Not her succumbing to death, but becoming its partner/acolyte. Which makes sense then to have her join the FM at least for a time. What's interesting about the present tense being used when telling her she's dead is that it gives a different meaning to the statement. It also is always in the context of her awareness of her situation and it's funny to tell someone they're dead as if they don't know it. ALmost like they're talking to a ghost. Oh wait...

Sure it can mean she will die but usually, when saying to a character "you're dead", that means they will die soon/are on the verge of dying. She hasn't and instead is "becoming death" and what is dying is who she used to be. Sure she is still Arya Stark but Arya Stark will never be that little reluctant lady again, she is in the process of becoming a different yet still real Arya. Even more interesting yet, these two who say that to her are the ones who end up "dying", both in iffy circumstances that leave it open ended as to whether they live or not but what is certain is that their current ID is dead. Syrio is either dead dead or someone else and the Hound is dead even if Sandor is not.

And well, the Jaime and Cat quotes are simply them not knowing about Arya, of course they would say that. To me, foreshadowing or textual hints are when the text is saying something either that doesn't make sense in context (that's why I understand even if I don't agree when people talk about Ned's queens and mother of princes references when Arya is not betrothed to the Crowned Prince) or is said in a way that is ambiguous/peculiar because it is describing more than the surface level situation. People saying that Arya is dead is simply them stating what they think are facts, everyone thinks she's dead. In Jaime's case, it wouldn't make sense for him to not say that. That's like saying Bran will die because people keep referring to his and Rickon's deaths. It's simply the wildly held belief. George doesn't have to be ambiguous about this, we know she's alive.

Also, there is a layer of irony both with Jaime and Brienne because while they focus on Sansa, a lot of the elements of their plots are related directly to Arya. They constantly go to places where she was and there is even a near miss while they're on the run. When she hears about the Hound, the entire time she thinks she's following Sansa's footsteps when she's following Arya's. Brienne stumbles on to the BwB who are tied to Arya and her vengeance obsessed mother (hm...who else has a hitlist and wants to eliminate Stark enemies?) and meets Gendry, Arya's longest travelling companion. Heck even that quote about Sansa marrying a blacksmith or a baker is funny when you think that he thinks that the safest thing is what Arya has been doing for the past year: going incognito with a blacksmith and a baker as companions, both of whom she considered her pack. Everything about Arya is a case of mistaken identities and misunderstandings. Arya has been many people and many people are thought to be Arya. People saying she is dead is a significant as the number of time people refer to Jon as Ned's bastard, they just don't know what we do. Arya wishes death on herself when she tells Elmar Frey that she hopes his princess dies. Surely, that mean she will commit suicide then. Sorry for the sarcasm, I just have a problem with what people call foreshadowing with an unreasonable amount of certitude when there are two books yet to come.

That being said, I certainly find the idea of her death intriguing and strangely enough, I have thought of more interesting end game scenarios with her dead than with her alive. I am really intrigued by the idea that she is essentially trying to kill Arya Stark but can't and the very blood that runs through her veins (warg status) makes it impossible. Maybe she can only die after she sees her family again. I really love the fact that her story feels open ended.

[Lord Cadwan]

Whatever else you say about Arya for me Mercy was the best chapter of the series and for me her using seduction was really just the most effective way to carry out the killing, nothing wrong with it at all.

[Mosop]

Using the Show as guide to whats or whats NOT important in the book

Arya is too much of a investment not to make it to the end and have a big impact like Tyron,or they would have killed her off to save money

Although there paying less actors than in Dorne,Bravos is too much of an investment to have her char end there (unless Bravos and the FM are key to the story)

She's not going to kill LS no LS in show so no point of Bravos

No warging from anyone but Bran and very lillte Dire wolf action,i know GRRM has said the wolf pack plays a role in the book but the show seems to ignore it so wont be key to the ending

Everything is building up to whats going to happen at the wall

She's going to play a role in the final story somehow

Sansa on the other hand could die in another story line that the show dosent want to set up and do,and thats why she's at winterfell in the show

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Using the Show as guide to whats or whats NOT important in the book

No point in doing that.

The ending may look alike, sure, but in the show it will be a hat, while in the books it will be a snake with an elephant in its stomach.

[The Mother of The Others]

Hoping she's the next whisperer watching from the shadows as her sis rules.

[Night's Princess]

Seeing as how it's been mentioned multiple times that Nymeria is practically set up already at the head of a wolf pack to be a host for Arya, I would like for her to merge with Nymeria if she does have to die.

[sweetsunray]

I think her vengeance arch is a bit of a red herring. She has her list and once in a while she actually gets to kill some of those on her list, although most of them die by the hands of other people. The FM too at the surface suggest the path of killing and vengeance. But her jounrey is the wanderer's story (as already said, comparable to the Odyseus) and being stripped of her identity on deep psychological level, layer by layer. And yet she retains the chore of ehr identity. When everything that can be stripped, when she's the one furthest away, every step she takes is one of getting closer to home again as well as building herself up again. I think her fate is one of rebuilding. Once she sets sail back for Westeros, I think she will have constant choices between revenge or rebuild something, and she'll end up choosing the latter options more and more.

[Rippounet]

In a book series with grown ass adults like Tywin and the Mountain setting the bar for evil behavior, how do any of the Stark kids, who are all young children, end up on the "grey" section of the moral grading scale?

So, because ASOAIF gives us terrible people like the Mountain, it's ok for a kid to become an assassin?

I also roll my eyes when people act like she's a serial killer on a rampage. Except for the killing of the tickler, she's particularly self-possessed. I mean, the girl doesn't add Freys to her list until she can find out who exactly was involved pretty much sums up what kind of avenger she is. Mission oriented and doesn't take pleasure in her kills, which somehow people have managed to turn into being more evidence that she's gone psycho.

"Mission oriented?" Dareon and the insurance guy say hi.

I feel this thread comes down to people who condone revenge killing and those who don't, and I dont believe Arya's chapter condone revenge killing in any way.

But let's check the text, shall we:

“There’s one on the next canal, but he won’t come. You have to go to him. Can’t you walk?”

“Walk?” His fingers were slick with blood. “Are you blind, girl? I’m bleeding like a stuck pig. I can’t walk on this.”

“Well,” she said, “I don’t know how you’ll get there, then.”

“You’ll need to carry me.”

See? thought Mercy. You know your line, and so do I.

“Think so?” asked Arya, sweetly.

Raff the Sweetling looked up sharply as the long thin blade came sliding from her sleeve. She slipped it through his throat beneath the chin, twisted, and ripped it back out sideways with a single smooth slash. A fine red rain followed, and in his eyes the light went out.

“Valar morghulis,” Arya whispered, but Raff was dead and did not hear.

Now, do we really need to use literary analysis to see that Arya takes a lot of pleasure in this killing? That the ritualistic element shows sadism or cruelty? I find it chilling, to say the least. Of couse, the reader is meant to root for Arya here (Raff is not a good guy), but it's also disturbing on so many levels I think it speaks for itself.

[sweetsunray]

So, because ASOAIF gives us terrible people like the Mountain, it's ok for a kid to become an assassin?

"Mission oriented?" Dareon and the insurance guy say hi.

This thread comes down to people who condone revenge killing and those who don't. I've read enough interviews given by Martin to think that those who need a reading comprehension class are those who believe Arya's chapter condone revenge killing in any way. No offense intended of course.

But let's check the text, shall we:

“There’s one on the next canal, but he won’t come. You have to go to him. Can’t you walk?”

“Walk?” His fingers were slick with blood. “Are you blind, girl? I’m bleeding like a stuck pig. I can’t walk on this.”

“Well,” she said, “I don’t know how you’ll get there, then.”

“You’ll need to carry me.”

See? thought Mercy. You know your line, and so do I.

“Think so?” asked Arya, sweetly.

Raff the Sweetling looked up sharply as the long thin blade came sliding from her sleeve. She slipped it through his throat beneath the chin, twisted, and ripped it back out sideways with a single smooth slash. A fine red rain followed, and in his eyes the light went out.

“Valar morghulis,” Arya whispered, but Raff was dead and did not hear.

Now, do we really need to use literary analysis to see that Arya takes a lot of pleasure in this killing? That the ritualistic element shows sadism or cruelty? I find it chilling, to say the least. Of couse, the reader is meant to root for Arya here (Raff is not a good guy), but it's also disturbing on so many levels I think it speaks for itself.

Actually, I disagree... I do not read glee or pleasure or sadism in it. Do I condone it, nope. Is it coldhearted, sure. Is it callous, yup. But he's not even aware of the nicked artery at first. There's no pain. And it's done quickly. You can read the "you know your line, and so do I" in any tone you want - gleeful, or simple observant. This goes for the other lines as well. Internal emotions, primary or secondary, as well as descriptions are almost totally missing. It's very very dry. And that is what makes it chilling (chilling as in absence of emotion and feeling). The ritual is that she makes him aware why he dies and mirrors the scene. The text itself does not state or clarify really what her emotions are, let alone how much she takes pleasure out of it. You can't positively determine that she takes 'a lot of pleasure' out of it. All you can claim is that feelings are completely absent in that scene.

Still, doesn't make her a psychopath for the reasons I already wrote. Hell, she doesn't even tick all the boxes anti-social personality disorder (a pscyhopath always also has ASPD, but not every ASPD-er is a pscyhopath), as long as she can feel empathy, sympathy and subtle layered emotions in other settings, isn't narcissistic and isn't selfish.Also need to specify, not all psychopaths are sadistic nor ritualistic nor even murderers.

In a completely different setting, but here's a personal example regarding absense of feeling in a situation and shutting off empathy - and why it happens. I personally experienced complete absence of emotions in dire situations where people around me panicked, were weeping, made drama (near drowning during a rafting incident and mere days later we were stuck in order to hide from a level 5 hurricane as big as France and the eye passed 30 km north of us). I told them what to do, gave instructions, etc... and I thought "how cold am I that their tears and fears don't make me want to consolidate them." Hell, it even went as far as them knocking on my door and shouting the army was passing by, and I simply shrugged and waved my hand and said, "That's all right. They know how to deal with hurricanes here." and I went right back to bed. The reason for that was that I knew what needed to be done and going along with their emotions would only have increased the drama and panic. They needed someone calm and unaffected, and though I wondered they would think of me as cold, they later said that my behaviour reassured them, calmed them and made them think they were exaggerating. However, the day after we could all breathe and think "we're safe", I saved a kitten less than 2 weeks old that I needed to feed milk and egg yoke. I took him everywhere until I found someone to adopt him, and I wept the day I had to leave him behind. So, while I shut off my empathy for days, I was afterwards in great need of empathizing a lot with something. If I'd write out dialogue of those events, you'd probably think I was chillingly cold and without emotion. Just doens't mean that the person is always without emotion.

[Rippounet]

Internal emotions, primary or secondary, as well as descriptions are almost totally missing.

Yes, that's what I find chilling.

Actually, I disagree... I do not read glee or pleasure or sadism in it. Do I condone it, nope. Is it coldhearted, sure. Is it callous, yup. But he's not even aware of the nicked artery at first. There's no pain. And it's done quickly. You can read the "you know your line, and so do I" in any tone you want - gleeful, or simple observant. This goes for the other lines as well. Internal emotions, primary or secondary, as well as descriptions are almost totally missing. It's very very dry. The ritual is that she makes him aware why he dies and mirrors the scene. The text itself does not state or clarify really what her emotions are, let alone how much she takes pleasure out of it.

Hmmm, I find it very hard to believe that she doesn't find at least satisfaction in those lines.

And previously, in the text, it says "she wants him badly". Like she has an urge to kill.

Maybe sadism or cruelty aren't the right words. But there's something chilling in that scene. There's definitely an implied satisfaction, and, in a sense, the calculated aspect is way scarier than a mindless rage.

I'm no psychologist, but I doubt that a young girl who is able to kill in such a way has any hope of ever becoming normal again. And this is what is being argued here: whether there's a way back for her. I see none. I sincerely don't understand how anyone can see one.

Still, doesn't make her a psychopath for the reasons I already wrote. Hell, she doesn't even tick all the boxes anti-social personality disorder (a pscyhopath always also has ASPD, but not every ASPD-er is a pscyhopath).Also need to specify, not all psychopaths are sadistic nor ritualistic nor even murderers.

The whole "psycho" thing is a matter of semantics for me. I doubt I even called her that in my previous posts. What do you call someone who kills so easily?

[sweetsunray]

The whole "psycho" thing is a matter of semantics for me. I doubt I even called her that in my previous posts. What do you call someone who kills so easily?

A professional?

Not every assassin needs to be a psychopath. They will though prevent feeling anything during an assassination, just like a surgeon will shut down all emotions in the OR. Of course, we can put a lot of questions behind the motivation to be an assassin. At least a surgeon saves lives. There will be psychopaths who become assassins, just as there are psychopaths amongst surgeons. You won't know it by how they do their job, but their personal life and how they deal with everyone in their lives - employees, children, partners, family, etc. In order to determine whether Arya is gradually warped into ASPD you need to have the info unrelated to the task/job. However, the mercy chapter is an on the job chapter from start to end, so we can't make any definite conclusion from it.

Several years ago there was a BBC series about Robin Hood with a very popular Guy of Gisborne (Richard Armitage). We see him murder a few people here and there, innocent people. And I had several discussions with people who were specialised in dagger use and so on, regarding some of the facial expressions during these scenes. Richard acted that part very well. He was a killer in that series, but also a man of emotions and able to empathize. We find it completely weird that someone who has empathy can kill someone so callously. But it's exactly the same as a surgeon, except they can stick a dagger in someone's kidney and swipe without blinking. They're on the job.

[NorthGirl]

So, because ASOAIF gives us terrible people like the Mountain, it's ok for a kid to become an assassin?

"Mission oriented?" Dareon and the insurance guy say hi.

I feel this thread comes down to people who condone revenge killing and those who don't, and I dont believe Arya's chapter condone revenge killing in any way.

But let's check the text, shall we:

“There’s one on the next canal, but he won’t come. You have to go to him. Can’t you walk?”

“Walk?” His fingers were slick with blood. “Are you blind, girl? I’m bleeding like a stuck pig. I can’t walk on this.”

“Well,” she said, “I don’t know how you’ll get there, then.”

“You’ll need to carry me.”

See? thought Mercy. You know your line, and so do I.

“Think so?” asked Arya, sweetly.

Raff the Sweetling looked up sharply as the long thin blade came sliding from her sleeve. She slipped it through his throat beneath the chin, twisted, and ripped it back out sideways with a single smooth slash. A fine red rain followed, and in his eyes the light went out.

“Valar morghulis,” Arya whispered, but Raff was dead and did not hear.

Now, do we really need to use literary analysis to see that Arya takes a lot of pleasure in this killing? That the ritualistic element shows sadism or cruelty? I find it chilling, to say the least. Of couse, the reader is meant to root for Arya here (Raff is not a good guy), but it's also disturbing on so many levels I think it speaks for itself.

Did you read my post carefully?

Re: Daeron and the insurance guy, I don't see how they're not examples of her carrying out the "righting the wrongs" agenda. For Daeron, it was a personal thing that Arya wanted to rectify, and again, it's not right, it just is. As for the insurance guy, it's literally her mission given by the KM so I don't get how it's not a mission oriented killing.

As for the passage, I don't get any satisfaction from it on Arya's part, it's the viewer who is like "hell yes!" she just carries it out and even notes not feeling much satisfaction and I surmise that this is a hint that revenge is not going to be sweet for her even if she feels compelled to carry it out.

The chilling part for me is the lack of glee, not the elation. Yes, there is a ritual, which is why I said mission oriented, she is righting wrongs in her head. It reads like she is sentencing him, he needs to know why he's dying. It's not just about the killing, it's about the punishment. Doesn't mean that what she's doing is right and I even said so in my post. I just said that simply because what's she's doing is wrong or disturbing doesn't mean she's a psychopath, not that she's in the right. My post is about the fact that her weird code and morality (or lack thereof) when dispensing death is interesting and we don't have to buy into it being just. This is about the base part of human behaviour that makes us wish we could punish those who wrong us and the ones we love but we know that it's not right and yet there is pleasure for the reader in seeing someone get their comeuppance. George also likes to make us feel bad about wishing punishment on characters, like with Theon and Cersei. It's never portrayed as ok.

That entire passage is meant to be disturbing on many levels. The reader is supposed to think "hm... I don't know about this" and feel uncomfortable.

[Rippounet]

Did you read my post carefully?

The chilling part for me is the lack of glee, not the elation. Yes, there is a ritual, which is why I said mission oriented, she is righting wrongs in her head. It reads like she is sentencing him, he needs to know why he's dying. It's not just about the killing, it's about the punishment. Doesn't mean that what she's doing is right and I even said so in my post. I just said that simply because what's she's doing is wrong or disturbing doesn't mean she's a psychopath, not that she's in the right. My post is about the fact that her weird code and morality (or lack thereof) when dispensing death is interesting and we don't have to buy into it being just. This is about the base part of human behaviour that makes us wish we could punish those who wrong us and the ones we love but we know that it's not right and yet there is pleasure for the reader in seeing someone get their comeuppance. George also likes to make us feel bad about wishing punishment on characters, like with Theon and Cersei. It's never portrayed as ok.

That entire passage is meant to be disturbing on many levels. The reader is supposed to think "hm... I don't know about this" and feel uncomfortable.

It seems I didn't (read carefully), since I actually agree with all the points you made. Dunno how I misread your posts so much, I must have spent too much time in front of my computer today, sorry.

Anyway, I agree 100% that Martin plays with the reader's wish for revenge and shows how dangerous it really is for anyone embarking upon that path.