Arya's Purpose?

[AvengingAryaFan]

Cheap "made you look!" moments ... reminds me of two shameless audience manipulations by GRRM: Brienne about to be hung by the neck, and Arya suddenly blind. Yeah, we only have to wait for the next installment to resolve those cliffhangers, and that's just ... well, let's see, I think it's going to be before either George or I die ...

[majander]

And I'D be surprised if there weren't a little more to this event than has met our eyes, because it IS a relative outlier compared to typical Arya behavior.

I'd disagree with this. She is Ned Stark's daughter, and in the code of honour that she was raised with, executing a renegade Night's Watchman is probably the easiest to understand of all her kills. I think the fact that she identified that it was Arya Stark that killed Dareon to the Kindly Man is significant in terms of her progress into becoming a FM.

[FrankenGregor]

I have a theory. It's pretty out there. But:

We know that it is possible to "warg" a human being; Bran did it to Hodor. Arya is receiving Faceless Man training, which seems to involve a great deal of mental fine-tuning as well as possibly the use of some type of illusory magic. I wonder if perhaps Arya would be able to combine her natural warg abilities with the superior self-discipline of the Faceless Men to use a kind of mind control over other people. By which I mean using her Facelesss training to get past any blocks a person would have over being uh, possessed? and then warging into them and controlling their actions. This would be a lot more effective than running around and killing people in circumstances.

The major problem I see with this is that the only example to my knowledge of warging a person has been upon a subject who is severely mentally retarded, by an extremely talented warg, one who knows what he is and is able to control his ability to some extent. I don't know whether people with more developed personalities or cognitive abilities would be able to be controlled in this way. In addition, Arya doesn't really know she's a warg; it's just something that happens occasionally as she sleeps. On the other hand, Arya picks up skills like nobody's business and there's still a long way to go.

Anyway, this was just something I was having some fun with and I don't think I've seen this particular theory discussed before. I don't think it'll turn out, and it might kind of suck if it did, but it's 6 in the morning and my brain wouldn't let it alone.

[TheBigTEA]

Think maybe faceless men have a talent for warging period? how do you explain when Weese's dog attacked him in Haranhal? That little bit has always bothered me and a warg ability would explain a lot.

[Errant Bard]

Think maybe faceless men have a talent for warging period? how do you explain when Weese's dog attacked him in Haranhal? That little bit has always bothered me and a warg ability would explain a lot.

The waif put the tears to one side and opened a fat stone jar. “This paste is spiced with basilisk blood. It will give cooked flesh a savory smell, but if eaten it produces violent madness, in beasts as well as men. A mouse will attack a lion after a taste of basilisk blood.â€

Arya chewed her lip. “Would it work on dogs?â€

“On any animal with warm blood.â€

[Maia]

Arya chewed her lip. “Would it work on dogs?â€

“On any animal with warm blood.â€

But the dog still only attacked it's designated target, rather than tore into people randomly. So, I dunno...

Syirean:

Arya is in no way the person responsible for handing justice in the north

Then who is, pray? From the POV of a Stark loyalist, that is, who is not privy to her brothers miracluous survival. As far as she knows, she is the last Stark who is alive and free. She claimed that Arya _Stark_ was responsible for this killing.

[Tears of Lys]

Good catch, Errant Bard.

While Arya is one of my favorite characters, (Bran being another), more and more, she's looking on murder as her first option in dealing with anyone problematic to her. Certainly, she doesn't kill everyone who pisses her off, but she thinks about it a little too often for my comfort. This worries me when I think about who she may act first and stop and think later on. (Terrible sentence, but I've got to go to physical therapy real soon!)

[siyrean]

But the dog still only attacked it's designated target, rather than tore into people randomly. So, I dunno...

Syirean:

Then who is, pray? From the POV of a Stark loyalist, that is, who is not privy to her brothers miracluous survival. As far as she knows, she is the last Stark who is alive and free. She claimed that Arya _Stark_ was responsible for this killing.

she knows perfectly well that a) sansa is ahead of her and b)she is not in the north nor is she the lord of winterfel. Ned could hand out justice in winterfel, not on one of the other lord paramounts land let alone another country. it was not Arya's right, wether she felt justified or not it not the issue. its rather disturbing that the girl feels she is law unto itself. she's aloud to break whatever laws she likes as long as she does it in the name of survival, but is also allowed to dish out justice at random to those she feels worthy.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Errant Bard, your quote about the basilisk blood is very observant.

Arya is a vigilante. Nobody accuses Charles Bronson's characters of being psychopathic, and Dirty Harry is a hero, and those two "exist" in a world far better policed than Westeros.

"Murder" is a pejorative word that may obscure the real question: is the killing justified or not? At Harrenhal Arya was a prisoner of war, and behaved brilliantly in favor of her side. Had she been a captive Stark soldier, the things she did would have been applauded without reservation. How much justification is needed for killing? In Westeros, not very much.

Arya embodies the de facto Westerosi policy in regard to killing: it WAS one of the first alternatives considered to address any political problem. Another house kidnapped your brother? Kill half a dozen of their men and cripple their lord (Jaime), and/or start a war (Tywin). Your sister or fiance was abducted? Start a rebellion without investigating whether it was her choice (Robert Baratheon). A subordinate house refuses to do homage to your house? Kill the entire house (Lannister). A man insults your house by marrying somebody else when he had promised to marry a woman from your house? Kill him and all his supporters (Frey). Etc., etc.

To be unable to kill, in Westeros, is to be subjugated by those who will. Some of the more sensitive and progressive among us find killing so repugnant that they judge each person in Westeros who kills, other than in pure self defense, to be bad, perhaps evil or psychopathic. They may find killing so black that they are unable to discern the different shades of brutal, wanton killing, such as by Gregor and Ramsey, versus killing that some feel is justified, such as by Robb (Karstark), Jon (wildling guard, Qhorin), and Arya.

Westerosi don't seem to have a commandment against killing, and indeed glorify it in many ways. The more sensitive among us want Arya to have a moral objection to killing, not to merely judge it like any other option (is it desirable? possible? will there be a serious penalty?). They want life to be sacrosanct. Well, it isn't, in Westeros. Get over it.

Arya does what is necessary to exert control in her world. She doesn't passively wait and wish for a society that would be more to her preferences, but deals with whatever reality confronts her: Syrio taught her to see with her eyes. She was always a realist, and never believed in stupid songs. She is astonishingly adaptive, courageous, and self reliant. Moreover, far from being a psychopath, she is pretty fair in her judgments of who deserves to die -- she has a clear sense of good and evil, even though killing, itself, is neither to her. I trust her instincts. The good guys have to be able to kill too, or the bad guys will rule the world. Arya is terrific.

[raif snow]

Like Perrin from AWOT she is meant to run with her pack..this is known.Wolves either create their own pack if they are strong enough or they survive until they find their own.

[Zoë Sumra]

Arya is a vigilante. Nobody accuses Charles Bronson's characters of being psychopathic, and Dirty Harry is a hero, and those two "exist" in a world far better policed than Westeros.

"Murder" is a pejorative word that may obscure the real question: is the killing justified or not? At Harrenhal Arya was a prisoner of war, and behaved brilliantly in favor of her side. Had she been a captive Stark soldier, the things she did would have been applauded without reservation. How much justification is needed for killing? In Westeros, not very much.

<snip>

Arya does what is necessary to exert control in her world. She doesn't passively wait and wish for a society that would be more to her preferences, but deals with whatever reality confronts her: Syrio taught her to see with her eyes. She was always a realist, and never believed in stupid songs. She is astonishingly adaptive, courageous, and self reliant. Moreover, far from being a psychopath, she is pretty fair in her judgments of who deserves to die -- she has a clear sense of good and evil, even though killing, itself, is neither to her. I trust her instincts. The good guys have to be able to kill too, or the bad guys will rule the world. Arya is terrific.

(with the whole post, not just the bits quoted)

[Tyro Lannister]

In regards to Arya killing Dareon and her reasoning.. perhaps after her meeting with Sam, where she told Sam where to find Dareon, Arya might have been curious why Sam was looking for Dareon and followed him and witnessed their fight where Dareon basically admitted that he would not stick to his Night's Watch vows. And then decided she would kill him. Is that enough of a reason though? Has Arya ever been present when her father Ned dealt justice? Therefore she might have acted on some lordly impulse. I don't recall if Arya thinks Sansa is dead or not, but if she does then Arya would believe she is the Lord of Winterfell and might feel compelled to do the right thing according to Northern law and so she executed Dareon.

In regards to the faceless man's interaction with Arya, he told Arya that she had come to the wrong place if she wanted to learn their arts so she could get revenge or deal justice to the people in her prayers, that only the Many faced god decided who should live and who should die and then on the other hand he is teaching her how to lie and how to create other identities. However he is also trying to get her to discard her old identities, which suggests that she might have to choose between being Arya Stark or being trained as a faceless woman.

In regards to her blindness, is this some kind of punishment for killing without the permission of the many faced god? Or just some more training? I could only guess at what her purpose will be at this point. She better not die though, at least not until after she does something useful though.

[Tears of Lys]

It may very well be too simplistic, but my theory on Arya - and all the rest of the Stark children - is that as their wolf goes, so go they. In other words, Lady, Sansa's wolf, was killed; that bodes ill for Sansa's future Stark-ness, or for that matter, her ladylike manners and view of things. I see her becoming a schemer like Petyr, and possibly coming to a bad end.

Arya's wolf was lost and roams on its own, killing, much like Arya does. Much as I'd like to see them meet up again, I don't think it's going to happen.

Rob's wolf, Grey Wolf, tried to warn him, but he didn't listen to him and it resulted in what most of us know happened.

Bran and Rickon are traveling with their wolves. We see how wild and savage Shaggydog is - just like Rickon (though, it hasn't been able to express itself much, since he's just a child.)

Jon remains with his "lone" wolf, Ghost, and Jon, being the bastard of the family, has had to go his own way too.

This theory has undoubtedly been propounded ad infinitum, but I thought I'd add my onion to the pot.

[Maia]

she knows perfectly well that a) sansa is ahead of her and b)she is not in the north nor is she the lord of winterfel. Ned could hand out justice in winterfel,

Well, neither was Robb Lord of Winterfell when he went to war. His father was taken prisoner - just like Sansa. Or are you saying that it is morally superior to got to war that will cause deaths and suffering of thousands of innocents than to execute one criminal, whose life is forfeit by custom and law? And whom Arya is duty-bound to punish as a an only free Stark (to her knowledge)? And yes, I am sure that she did hear Daeron confess his treason.

AvengingAryaFan - couldn't agree more. What bugs me is that people seem to forgive equally murderous behaviour of people whom they consider "warriors". I appears to me that the fact that Arya isn't a bad-ass fighter, but still dares to kill to survive and/or to avenge that causes most ire.

IIRC Jaime's and Theon's first thoughts about inconvenient/ threatening people are usually equally murderous, but for them somehow it isn't sign of craziness or of being generally disturbed. Maybe it is Arya's age that makes people judge her so differently... maybe it is something else. .

[Errant Bard]

Or are you saying that it is morally superior to got to war that will cause deaths and suffering of thousands of innocents than to execute one criminal,

In Westeros, certainly. Ned has no compunction to go to war, but he absolutely refuses to have the last Targaryen killed, when his king, the source of the law, orders it. He's willing to go to war later on just to save one life.

Similarly, we have the reactions to the Red Wedding. Tywin makes a good case for it: "better thousand in the field or a few at a feast?", but in the mind of everyone in Westeros, and a good part of the readership as well, Robb declaring war is good and the Red Wedding is bad.

I can hear you saying the Red Wedding is different because it's the circumstances that are despisable, but that's my main point: the circumstances are what matter. If you kill outside tradition and law, it's bad, both because the character is distancing himself from "normality" and because society, if aware of it, would reject him. War is traditional and good, killing without trial is not.

Would it be normal and good if Dany had slit the throat of Ned in Alley of King's Landing? Rightful Queen killing a rebel should be ok from any viewpoint, aye?

[Insert Edit]

In Westeros, certainly. Ned has no compunction to go to war, but he absolutely refuses to have the last Targaryen killed, when his king, the source of the law, orders it. He's willing to go to war later on just to save one life.

Similarly, we have the reactions to the Red Wedding. Tywin makes a good case for it: "better thousand in the field or a few at a feast?", but in the mind of everyone in Westeros, and a good part of the readership as well, Robb declaring war is good and the Red Wedding is bad.

I can hear you saying the Red Wedding is different because it's the circumstances that are despisable, but that's my main point: the circumstances are what matter. If you kill outside tradition and law, it's bad, both because the character is distancing himself from "normality" and because society, if aware of it, would reject him. War is traditional and good, killing without trial is not.

Would it be normal and good if Dany had slit the throat of Ned in Alley of King's Landing? Rightful Queen killing a rebel should be ok from any viewpoint, aye?

See where you're going, but let me ask you this; everyone is outraged about the Red Wedding, but where's the armies headed to the Twins to lop off Frey's head?

[Errant Bard]

See where you're going, but let me ask you this; everyone is outraged about the Red Wedding, but where's the armies headed to the Twins to lop off Frey's head?

Dead, immobilized by their Lord hostage in Casterly Rock, under the control of Lords who planned the thing, hanging Freys in the Riverlands, waiting their time in the Vale?

I never claimed a criminal would always be punished. Gregor is a criminal under traditional "law", correct? That didn't mean he was punished. Same for Jaime and kingslaying.

Yet, war makes heroes and kings, and murders (as defined by Westerosi tradition) make despised assassins. The morality of it is pretty clear cut in Westeros: even if you prove too useful or powerful to punish, you'll always be a criminal.

But we're far from the original subject, which was how Arya's relation with killing was not healthy and how this could make her evolve into a state where she stops killing only for reader-approved motives.

[Maia]

In Westeros, certainly. Ned has no compunction to go to war, but he absolutely refuses to have the last Targaryen killed, when his king, the source of the law, orders it.

And this last Targ was a convicted criminal and a deserter from the NW, whose life is forfeit? Better to ask, would he have killed Jorah Mormont if he ran across him? IMHO, he would have.

Daeron already did have his trial from Lord Rowan and was convicted. Since then are people who opted to join NW in order to avoid their rightful punishment and then deserted entitled to an extra trial? What is there to judge, once their being NW deserters is established? According to Ned their lives are automatically forfeit. Nor did I see any evidence that people are required to take an NW deserter alive. I mean, an NW deserter is a trained warrior - that would be a tall order for the smallfolk.

You speak about the Red Wedding - it broke a fundamental unwritten law of their society, one that allows it to function, particularly during the harsh winters. The law that dictates that NW deserters shouldn't be suffered to live isn't quite as fundamental, but it is venerable enough.

[Errant Bard]

And this last Targ was a convicted criminal and a deserter from the NW, whose life is forfeit?

Why, yes, he was someone condemned by the highest instance of the law. Who else decided that a deserter from the NW forfeited his life?

[Insert Edit]

Dead, immobilized by their Lord hostage in Casterly Rock, under the control of Lords who planned the thing, hanging Freys in the Riverlands, waiting their time in the Vale?

I never claimed a criminal would always be punished. Gregor is a criminal under traditional "law", correct? That didn't mean he was punished. Same for Jaime and kingslaying.

Yet, war makes heroes and kings, and murders (as defined by Westerosi tradition) make despised assassins. The morality of it is pretty clear cut in Westeros: even if you prove too useful or powerful to punish, you'll always be a criminal.

I think it's all part of the point Martin is trying to make. He hammers the point home over and over again. The powerful and mighty have one set of 'rules' and the small-folk have another. Those with might have right, and those who are weak get shafted. Just when you think that there will be justice - George will pull the football away, and you'll Charlie Brown on your behind.

You could tell your theory about heroes, kings, murderers and assassins to Sandor Clegane, and he'd laugh in your face.

I'd argue that morality in Westeros is as malleable as anywhere - not clear cut in the least.

The only way that Arya wouldn't have been the sociopath that you say she is, is by dying. (which she may still do - but doubtful - I think she's in it for the long haul)