Arya's Purpose?

[Happy Ent]

This underscores my point: the goodness or badness of killing, at least in Westeros, depends solely on whether the victim deserved to die (incl. participants in a war). Thus, UnCat might be LEGAL, but she is still WRONG, and shooting herself in the foot to boot. And making herself despicable in a way that Arya has not yet done.

Your point is lost on me, then.

The Northman guard at Harrenhal deserved to die why?

And Jaime does not deserve to die why?

[Errant Bard]

This underscores my point: the goodness or badness of killing, at least in Westeros, depends solely on whether the victim deserved to die (incl. participants in a war).

Thus morality is entirely dependant on things the characters do not know? That makes sense I guess, it is known that GRRM would never present the real good guys with non-bad guys to kill, so screw fair trials, they're bad guys so anything you do to them is good.

[a_homeless_harpy]

It is strange that some people simply don't want to see that Martin at all costs avoids dividing his characters into "baddies" and "goodies".

Arya, like plenty of other characters, has made good and bad choices so far, has been ruthless, innocent, agressive and defenceless in the same time. You can't say that every man she's killed trully deserved it, especially the guard at Harrenhal, but also you can't state that she's become a monster like the Bloody Mummers or Gregor C.

the goodness or badness of killing, at least in Westeros, depends solely on whether the victim deserved to die

I couldn't disagree more; we see plenty of people dying just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong moment. Read again Arya's journey through the Riverlands and you'll know what I mean, AvengingAryaFan.

[Errant Bard]

It is strange that some people simply don't want to see that Martin at all costs avoids dividing his characters into "baddies" and "goodies".

Arya, like plenty of other characters, has made good and bad choices so far, has been ruthless, innocent, agressive and defenceless in the same time. You can't say that every man she's killed trully deserved it, especially the guard at Harrenhal, but also you can't state that she's become a monster like the Bloody Mummers or Gregor C.

Calling them monsters clashes a bit with your first sentence.

Anyway, I state that she's become like Sandor Clegane or Jaime Lannister, that the way she deals with problems is not healthy, especially at such a young age, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that all in all of all the cast she's the most likely to turn into an adult about as moral as Gregor Clegane.

[a_homeless_harpy]

Calling them monsters clashes a bit with your first sentence.

Anyway, I state that she's become like Sandor Clegane or Jaime Lannister, that the way she deals with problems is not healthy, especially at such a young age, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that all in all of all the cast she's the most likely to turn into an adult about as moral as Gregor Clegane.

Well, a few characters in the series do seem just evil and nothing else but most of them have just as many good as bad traits mixed up deep inside. Sandor and Jaime are the best examples.

I suppose Martin has a different fate for Arya in store but I must admit - if she continued behaving as she did so far, you would be most probably right.

[Maia]

Anyway, I state that she's become like Sandor Clegane or Jaime Lannister, that the way she deals with problems is not healthy, especially at such a young age, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that all in all of all the cast she's the most likely to turn into an adult about as moral as Gregor Clegane.

Well, since both Sandor and Jaime have dealt with their problems the same way throughout their adolescence and adult lives _without_ turning into Gregor clones, I don't see why Arya would. For that matter, Loras Tyrell behaved much worse than Arya, killing an innocent man in a fit of rage and wanted to kill some innocent women either, but I don't see him turning into Gregor any time soon. Even Bronn, a remorseless payed killer, doesn't come close to Gregor or the Brave Companions or whatever. Why single out Arya?

And again, I basically don't understand why minor Robb going to war without being Lord of Winterfell and not even having been left in charge of the North by said Lord is acceptable, while Arya (who to her knowledge is either a heir to the captive rightful Lady or perhaps even the rightful Lady herself) executing Daeron is awful. Even though it has been strongly suggested that it is the right and the duty of every Northman to kill a NW deserter. Now, some might find that law unjust. OTOH, only because of it the NW was able to exist in that form for so long and many of the members were able to avoid an execution or mutilation earlier in their lives.

Also, Robb attacked people in their sleep and raided civilians and that is seen as more moral than Arya killing to survive or people who deserved it (by Northern standards)?! Sure, the guard at Harrenhal didn't particularly deserve to die to our knowledge, but Arya knew that she had to escape the castle in order to survive (and she was right! IIRC all servants who remained were horrifically murdered) and the only way to do so successfully was to kill him.

Similarly, most sleeping soldiers and knights at Oxcross didn't deserve to die when Robb's forces killed them, nor did the Western smallfolk whom he raided deserved what was done to them. It is war and terrible deeds are being committed for the sake of survival and victory. And IMHO, it is more moral to do them for survival, but YMMV.

[Gaston de Foix]

Your point is lost on me, then.

The Northman guard at Harrenhal deserved to die why?

And Jaime does not deserve to die why?

The Northman did not deserve to die, but Arya was justified in killing him on the assumption that it was his life or hers and she needed to get out of Harrenhall if she wished to live.

I've really enjoyed this thread and I sympathise with those who criticise Arya disturbing attitude to death. I would emphasise that insofar as we are considering questions of responsibility in either a moral or political sense what matters is subjective knowledge of wrongdoing.

This is the point I would make with regards to Daeron, Arya has accepted a theology which considers death a gift legitimately given to anyone who breaks laws. From an objective standard I think the theology dangerously lacks concepts of both proportionality and legitimate authority in punishment, but from Arya's perspective she's done nothing inconsistent with the indoctrination that she's undergone. Moreover the circumstances that have pushed her towards accepting this theology have been produced by anger, grief, loss, alienation, abandonment, severe suffering and a strong survival instinct. To compare Arya to Jon or Robb largely misses the point both in terms of their maturity and in terms of what has happened to them. None of the Starks have had a good time, but Arya has no sense of belonging and nobody to protect her. Beside's she a child. To suggest that morally she's anywhere close to Gregor Clegane is foolish and ignores the moral complexity of ASOIAF.

[Errant Bard]

Well, since both Sandor and Jaime have dealt with their problems the same way throughout their adolescence and adult lives _without_ turning into Gregor clones, I don't see why Arya would.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Arya actually belong to an assassin organisation right now, has noone moderating her tendencies, no parents, no family, no structured society or noble name forcing her to behave according to the rules of society.

My comparison with Jaime and Sandor was about her moral standpoint right now, it's a bit specious to use it to extrapolate her future, as the surrounding circumstance are widely different.

And again, I basically don't understand why minor Robb going to war without being Lord of Winterfell and not even having been left in charge of the North by said Lord is acceptable, while Arya (who to her knowledge is either a heir to the captive rightful Lady or perhaps even the rightful Lady herself) executing Daeron is awful.

Because Robbs acts in the frame and society and obey its rules, and can't and doesn't do things alone. When it was not acceptable anymore, other people put a stop to it.

Are you even seriously arguing that whoever decides stuff or leads armies (let's say, for example, the US army in Iraq) should be tried like a common murderer?

Arya is as much Lady of Winterfell than Vyserys was king of the seven kingdoms in Vaes Dothrak.

[Insert Edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Arya actually belong to an assassin organisation right now, has noone moderating her tendencies, no parents, no family, no structured society or noble name forcing her to behave according to the rules of society.

My comparison with Jaime and Sandor was about her moral standpoint right now, it's a bit specious to use it to extrapolate her future, as the surrounding circumstance are widely different.

Because Robbs acts in the frame and society and obey its rules, and can't and doesn't do things alone. When it was not acceptable anymore, other people put a stop to it.

Are you even seriously arguing that whoever decides stuff or leads armies (let's say, for example, the US army in Iraq) should be tried like a common murderer?

Arya is as much Lady of Winterfell than Vyserys was king of the seven kingdoms in Vaes Dothrak.

So color within the lines and you're alright. GRRM seems to put a lot of time and effort into suggesting otherwise - seems to be one of the bedrock lessons of the books.

Arya is SUPPOSED to make you feel ambivalent as a reader. She is SUPPOSED to make you question. Is she a hero or a monster? Is there really a difference, or is it sometimes just fate and chance that decides which an individual becomes? Little girls aren't supposed to kill. But despite her being a killer she has redeeming qualities. Welcome to GRRM's world.

Anyway, both Joffrey and Gregor were monsters as children (Joffrey torturing animals, Gregor torturing his younger brother). The jury is out on Arya. I think anyone who says they know where GRRM is going with her is just a confident guesser.

[Happy Ent]

And again, I basically don't understand why minor Robb going to war without being Lord of Winterfell and not even having been left in charge of the North by said Lord is acceptable, while Arya (who to her knowledge is either a heir to the captive rightful Lady or perhaps even the rightful Lady herself) executing Daeron is awful.

OK, I want to play as well. Here's my take on it.

I see nothing "awful" in Arya's behaviour, certainly not her killing of Daeron (which, as far as I understand, is completely correct, especially for a Faceless Man-to-be).

I do think that Arya is a sociopath, however. That doesn't mean I don't like her.

The claim of Arya's "lack-of-empathy" or "sociopathy" or "lack-of-taboo" is no moral condemnation. It's a character flaw, just like Tyrion's deformity. I'm not accusing her of anything (just like I'm not accusing Tyrion of being ugly). I simply claim that Arya, consistently, is being described as a human being without the aversion to killing that makes up the normal human psyche.

Note what I'm not saying:

• I'm not saying that Arya is cruel. She takes absolutely no pleasure in killing. On the contrary: Killing to her is a non-special activity, like washing your hands. Her emotional defect is the absence of any emotion about killing. The absence of aversion, and also the absence of glee or joy. She's doesn't enjoy it like Reek or Gregor may be.
  
• I'm not saying that she kills especially many people, or for wrong reasons.
  

To re-iterate: it is the complete lack of aversion to killing that is troubling me. Not the fact that she does, in fact, kill.

The examples to demonstrate her lack of aversion are many, and mentioned throughout this thread. To me, the strongest proofs are the immediacy with which she speculates about killing Hot Pie, Gendry, and the horse-buying woman. Note: she doesn't kill any of these (nor would she enjoy it), but it's not normal to think like that. She's a sociopath because people aren't supposed to think like that. (But they are supposed to kill other people for survival. That's completely normal. The characterisation is Arya is not based on the fact that she kills people.)

Let me take up a few related points. There are almost no instances where Arya displays any set of ethical values. She isn't good, and has no concept of justice or decency or mercy. The only counterexample that springs to mind is when she gives water to a number of Lannister captives of the BwB. Then Anguy kills them. Valar murghulis, Arya thinks. That's a good example: she isn't cruel. The suffering of others gives her no joy. But Anguy killing them? No problem.

Later, she and Sandor give the gift of death to a dying archer. It's the same story. Ease his pain, then kill him. Death is a gift. Again, Arya shows no negative reaction. Sandor kills the man by driving his knife into the man's chest. "That's where the heart is, girl. That's how you kill a man." Arya's reaction: That's one way. Lovely.

To wrap this up: the claim is that Arya doesn't feel (and never has felt) any aversion to killing. Killing is a normal act for her, whereas the human mind normally has a barrier to it, a taboo. She's behaved like that from the start — her mindset has not evolved because of the war she's been trust into (her "body count" has gone up because of the war). It's exactly the mindset GRRM would need to build a remorseless killer, so it would make a lot of sense to use this archetype.

(She's not cruel, and not a bad person.)

[AvengingAryaFan]

Your point is lost on me, then.

The Northman guard at Harrenhal deserved to die why?

And Jaime does not deserve to die why?

The first rule in war is to protect thineself. A guard guards; if he fails, he dies. Arya is escaping probable death, and/or removing a significant bargaining chip from the enemy ... protecting herself.

Whether Jaime deserves to die is unclear; he appears to have turned a leaf, and if we allow ourselves to play God for a moment, we might decide he deserves to live because he has, in his heart, truly committed himself to honor. On the other hands, for his past actions he deserves to die. But what has that to do with the argument, anyway?

[Happy Ent]

The first rule in war is to protect thineself. A guard guards; if he fails, he dies.

This means that everybody who died in war deserved to die, right? Did i get this right? (I think it's completely bananas, but before I attack it, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.)

But what has that to do with the argument, anyway?

Brienne is executed for her refusal to kill Jaime. I want to understand if you think that Jaime deserved to die, in which case Brienne wouldn't have a point, and her hanging would be even more correct that it is in the first place. (Since the question of whether Jaime deserves to die has nothing to do with whether Brienne is allowed to refuse that order. But I'll play along for the sake of argument.)

[AvengingAryaFan]

I see nothing "awful" in Arya's behaviour, certainly not her killing of Daeron (which, as far as I understand, is completely correct, especially for a Faceless Man-to-be).

I do think that Arya is a sociopath, however. That doesn't mean I don't like her.

The claim of Arya's "lack-of-empathy" or "sociopathy" or "lack-of-taboo" is no moral condemnation. It's a character flaw, just like Tyrion's deformity. I'm not accusing her of anything (just like I'm not accusing Tyrion of being ugly). I simply claim that Arya, consistently, is being described as a human being without the aversion to killing that makes up the normal human psyche.

...

To re-iterate: it is the complete lack of aversion to killing that is troubling me. Not the fact that she does, in fact, kill.

I appreciate your distinction between having a "flaw" (which you might not really intend to be like Tyrion's deformity, which is not a character flaw) and being a "bad person."

However, in that case your conclusion that Arya is a "sociopath" leans heavily on an implicit definition of "sociopathy," to wit: lack of aversion to killing = sociopath.

OK. That's a definition. It encompasses a whole bunch of people, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I just happen to think that there's more to a sociopath than simply having no aversion to killing. My "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" (which, interestingly, is actually based on a Random House Dictionary of the English Language) defines sociopath thusly: "a person who is hostile to society."

That's all there is; no second or third definitions.

And I think I can fairly say that Arya is NOT hostile to society, only to certain people that she views as inimical to society.

[Happy Ent]

I just happen to think that there's more to a sociopath than simply having no aversion to killing. My "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" [...]

Oh, we can bandy definitions about. No problem.

GRRM's creation of Arya might have involved him looking up the sociopath entry on Wikpedia (or the American Psychiatric Association), and just running with that. Here it is:

Three or more of the following are required:

• [#]Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
  [#]Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
  [#]Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
  [#]Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
  [#]Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
  [#]Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honour financial obligations
  [#]Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
  

Some of these, Arya fits to a tee. So much that it's almost laughable.

For example, here use of aliases is a major theme throughout her chapters. It's one of her defining characteristics. (And, of course, ultimately perfected in Faceless Man training.)

"Failure to sustain consistent work behaviour". Again, a perfect fit. It's her introductory sentence: her stitches were crooked.

As for "social norms" (which harmonises with the definition you quoted): Arya is very much the lone wolf. She doesn't play well with others. She has problems with authority, and she cannot keep friends. (Neither is she especially worried about that.)

Reckless, impulsive, irresponsible? All there.

[AvengingAryaFan]

This means that everybody who died in war deserved to die, right? Did i get this right? (I think it's completely bananas, but before I attack it, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.)

Brienne is executed for her refusal to kill Jaime. I want to understand if you think that Jaime deserved to die, in which case Brienne wouldn't have a point, and her hanging would be even more correct that it is in the first place. (Since the question of whether Jaime deserves to die has nothing to do with whether Brienne is allowed to refuse that order. But I'll play along for the sake of argument.)

Ah, thank you.

No, I'm suggesting that the rules of war are that you die because you are in a war, not because you deserve to, and consequently that we can't apply the rule that somebody shouldn't die unless they deserve to die to all situations, war being a prime example.

Interesting. In fact, Brienne, bless her heart, is the only person in Westeros that has recognized Jaime's change of heart. SHE knows that Jaime no longer deserves to die. Like Arya suspending her death-intent for Sandor, Brienne sees that Jaime is behaving as honorably as possible, and determines in her own correct but unprovable way that Jaime deserves to live, and indeed deserves loyalty. And she is correct, judging as we assume God would from the truth of the heart.

While UnCat can't know this, she COULD HAVE understood that Jaime is keeping the promise that he made TO CAT. If UnCat refuses to trust Jaime's honor now, why in the hell did she choose to trust it when she released him? Just because he hasn't succeeded? It's not as if it's an easy task!

[Insert Edit]

OK, I want to play as well. Here's my take on it.

I see nothing "awful" in Arya's behaviour, certainly not her killing of Daeron (which, as far as I understand, is completely correct, especially for a Faceless Man-to-be).

I do think that Arya is a sociopath, however. That doesn't mean I don't like her.

<snip>

To wrap this up: the claim is that Arya doesn't feel (and never has felt) any aversion to killing. Killing is a normal act for her, whereas the human mind normally has a barrier to it, a taboo. She's behaved like that from the start — her mindset has not evolved because of the war she's been trust into (her "body count" has gone up because of the war). It's exactly the mindset GRRM would need to build a remorseless killer, so it would make a lot of sense to use this archetype.

(She's not cruel, and not a bad person.)

I'm going to jump in and offer my comments on this (once again )

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. So I could be way off base here. Your theory seems to be: A lack of revulsion to killing is not 'normal' for a child. If Arya were to be more upset, or think of other options, then she wouldn't be a sociopath.

I'm fairly on board up to this point I think. But here's where I diverge. Tabula rasa - the blank slate. A child is innocent. That can and has been argued - for every child hugging another - you also have plenty of examples of two year olds hitting each other for no apparent reason - hey look what I can do! But let's not get too sidetracked with that. Let's assume that there's the blank slate.

Child #1 has a normal modern upbringing. Morals. Mom and Dad love each other, show affection. Lessons are learned. Consequences for bad choices. Learning ensues. Child develops into a reasonable, moral adult - with all the societal conditioning appropriate.

Child #2 has a horrible upbringing. Sexually abused by Dad. Blamed by Mom. Lessons are learned. Learning ensues. Child develops into a horribly twisted, withdrawn, angry adult - with not a whole lot but skepticism and rage towards societal conventions.

Which is MORE likely to become a monster?

Now let's take Arya. She's had a pretty great upbringing at first. Noble. Well fed, parent who love her. She's a misfit, but what kid isn't at some age? Then things change. War comes. Pet is killed, friend is butchered, sister won't speak up for her, father is beheaded before her, she's alone, on the run, no support. She kills for the first time. It keeps her alive. Wash, rinse, repeat.

So she's numb to violence? She's emotionally shut off? Why would that be?

I mean I'm a 43 year old male, twice divorced, and I'm emotionally challenged, and I had a pretty amazing childhood - well a bit overbonded with my crazy mother, but let's not get into that...

If I'd had a friend cut down in front of me, my father beheaded in front of me, killed my first person before the age of 12, been on the run for a big chunk of my formative years - no doubt I'd be very well emotionally adjusted! Oh yeah, and then there were those years in the death cult where they trained me to conceal my emotions and lie. That could figure into me being a bit shut off too!

Anyway, all sarcasm aside - we're using some pretty high standards to judge whether a girl is a sociopath or not.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Oh, we can bandy definitions about. No problem.

GRRM's creation of Arya might have involved him looking up the sociopath entry on Wikpedia (or the American Psychiatric Association), and just running with that. Here it is:

...

OK. In view of this incredibly broad definition, I can see why people are calling Arya a sociopath.

This definition confirms my sense of the American Psychiatric Association: that they have their collective heads up their asses, and can't distinguish good from bad, so they make up arbitrary definitions to cover their lack of perception.

Nonetheless, it provides support for the argument that Arya is a sociopath.

Hereafter, I will acknowledge that Arya is a sociopath in accordance with the definition set forth by the APsychiatricAssn.

And hope I never fall into their hands. Their definition can be used to condemn an awful lot of good people. And I know certain governments who would gladly condemn certain good people simply because they consider them a problem.

I wouldn't have thought that a sociopath could be good, but what did I know?

Naw, I'm kidding. I simply think the Webster's definition is better. It's certainly easier to remember!

[Insert Edit]

I do like the concept that "Her stitches were crooked" foreshadowed her future depravity. I couldn't hit a baseball for *hit as a child - so that likely foreshadowed my being emotionally disconnected.

[Happy Ent]

But let's not get too sidetracked with that. Let's assume that there's the blank slate.

Then we can have no debate. GRRM doesn't use the Blank Slate for any of his characters. None of them are "products of their environments". He goes out of his way to have Joffrey and Tommen. Sansa and Arya. Etc., etc.

Also, it's a silly argument. The reasons for Arya's psychological make-up don't enter into the argument. She's a sociopath. You say "there's a reason for that". Fine. But she's still a sociopath.

Or are we now discussing why Arya is a sociopath? That would mean she is one, right?

[AvengingAryaFan]

... to the effect that Arya has suffered greatly in the war, so her actions are reasonable.

I just want to repeat the point Errant Bard (well, he used to be ...) makes: understanding WHY somebody is something doesn't mean they AREN'T that something.

You're excusing Arya. I agree, but that's an affirmative defense after an admission of guilt. I'm saying that, to the contrary, she's not guilty as charged: she's not a sociopath (well, except according to the 3 page definition of the APA), because she's just, has appropriate human feelings, and isn't hostile to society.

So long as she keeps making correct decisions (kill Polliver, don't kill Sandor, kill guard, don't kill Hot Pie), I think she remains good, and isn't a sociopath.

Oh, and I love her incredible willingness to take on the world.