Syrio Forel

[Greywolf2375]

Hmm, that's true. But if his reputation is so great why does everyone accept the idea that he's Arya's dancing instructor instead of a master swordsman? :)

Most likely because his reputation is within a specific arena - not just general fame and familiarity.

[Mad Monkey]

His reputation might be greater across the Narrow Sea than in King's Landing, whose denizens tend to know much more about legendary Westerosi knights like the Kingslayer or the Sword of the Morning than foreign people of varied renown such as the First Sword of Braavos, Strong Belwas, or even Areo Hotah and his Bearded Priest gorup. Actually, they don't even really know all that much about the Kingslayer or the Sword of the Morning. People in Westeros are really fricking stupid, is where I'm going with this. Ned could have said that Syrio is teaching Arya how to program in Javascript and all he'd get in respond was a slackjawed, glassy-eyed nod.

and is a plaything for Arya.

Ew, why'd you have to phrase it like that?

[Errant Bard]

Hmm, that's true. But if his reputation is so great why does everyone accept the idea that he's Arya's dancing instructor instead of a master swordsman? :)

But if his reputation as a swordsman is so well known in Westeros, wouldn't it raise a red flag if Ned hired him as a "dancing instructor" for his daughter?

Who is this everyone who "accepts" that he's Arya dancing instructor? It presupposes that these "everyone" know the name of the dancing master but don't know he's an armsmaster, that's contradictory.

Seems to me that apart from the spying politicians, noone would even know what Arya or Syrio do of their days. And even them wouldn't necessarily know the name of the guy who is seen teaching Arya the blade. It's not like being a legend means you are identifiable at first sight, always, all the time, in a foreign country, even if your name is well known. See Barristan in the east, who would have "an excellent reputation" attached to his name, would he wish to promote his services, but who would be able to walk around not even recognized by his own compatriots.

Anyway, why would it raise a red flag if he's hired? Excellent reputation never meant being superman, nor did it mean having his whole past known. I'm sure there were a lot of people among Ned's entourage who would have had excellent reputation, like Jory. They die all the same. Don't forget this is done by the guys who sent two redshirts to arrest Barristan, while they knew exactly who and what Barristan was, comparatively, sending six men among them an armoured Kingsguard is almost overkill.

[Cereal Forel]

I don't even know what we're debating any more. I think we're on the same side.

[The SmilingKnight]

Syrios training of Arya, more specifically how it was often misrepresented as lessons in dancing.

Which was of course Syrios intentional doing.

Thats the way he wanted it to be. He was teaching but with additional plan or goal or benefit, if you will, to have it as a potential secret, surprise for enemies.

He quickly and accurately saw that as long as most people jumped to that conclusion he might as well just do nothing and let it continue.

Plus he got her doing exercise and trained her with sticks, then wooden swords, only in private and later on.

Plus it was preferred like that by the Hand too, because the rest of family wouldnt approve, naturally.

Has nothing to do with the merit of his position.

It was just an additional task to the job, one he did only too well and effortlessly.

[jjames36]

First, I've been away the last couple days for various reasons, so haven't had the opportunity to read the rest of the thread yet. I don't know if this post has been further discussed. But I'm going to respond to the points that need responding to. Mostly I think you and I, Roi Woodt, are at an impasse and that continued debating is only going to result in regurgitated arguments that won't, in fact, move the conversation forward. We'll see if you prove me wrong on that front. :-)

I really like the way how you argument your points, but this is clearly not one of your best. I have no idea how old he is, but beating up 5 lannister guards with a wooden stick is not bad. If he wanted to, I am sure he could have done better than training children.

Maybe he could have. But who cares? Do we know he wanted to? Do we have any reason to think he was unhappy? Not as far as I can recall. The notion that maybe he could have or could not have found better employment is irrelevant to me. All that matters is how the character character impacted the story we have. I, in other words, disagree with you entirely on this point--I'm unconcerned that he was training a girl, and I believe the backstory explaining said fact isn't all that germane to the main story of this series (which is why it was left out of the books, I'm sure).

If you consider that one of my lesser argued points, that's fine.

You are really discrediting Martin here. First you claim he doesn't think about what he writes, that he is only interested in his main characters. Next to that, you think it's all for the money and he deliberately keeps his readers in the dark for no reason at all, just to make money? I probably misread this, but this is not how I see grrm.

I didn't say it was all about the money, and I don't think that it is, but I can understand why you interpreted it that way from the words I did use. I said he has any number of reasons to remain evasive, one of which is potentially financial. There's no reason for him to end the conversation, so it's possible that's he not doing so only because there's little to no benefit in the action.

I also didn't say he doesn't think about about what he writes. I said he can't think of every possible result of every single detail--the books are too big. Most writers I know (and I know a lot, what with the 8 creative writing workshops I've been a part of, the countless writing groups I've been in, the publishers I've worked for and so forth) think about two things when writing: 1. Characters, and 2. Plot.

Symbolism, imagery, etc come incidentally or in revision. Martin was thinking about the most important things in that chapter, I've no doubt, those things being the Lannister coup and Arya's development. But there's no reason to assume he considers every last element of his novels before the readers do; it's impossible, no matter how brilliant the writer in question is.

I said it in a different thread, but my favorite experience as a writer is when a reader approaches me and says, "I so love the imagery here. And your repeated motif of X is amazing." I smile and don't say a word (why would I?) but more times than not I'm thinking, "Yeah. That was so not intentional." Now, Martin's a better and more successful writer than I am, there's no question, but he's also human. He can't anticipate everything. It's impossible.

I wouldn't assume that the inconclusiveness of Syrio's fate is one of the things he didn't consider in advance except that he's said as much in multiple interviews. On this, I'm inclined to take him at his word (because I can easily empathize with the experience).

No, as I said earlier, I choose it to be this way, with a weak argument, above the imaginary scenarios of Rorge and Biter being afraid and the lack of backstory of an important faceless man. If I have to choose to imagine something, I rather imagine a larger dark cell (it's not ruled out) than having to imagine a new scenario where Jaqen scared Rorge and Biter.

So, you're willing to invent an area that's never been hinted at just because you can't accept having an unanswered question about minor characters. I can't imagine that passing an English Lit professor's acceptable use of evidence.

But I also can't think of any fresh arguments on this point, so I have no choice but to accept it.

I disagree. They still have family. And they are worth far more.

Fair enough. See the first point I made on being at an impasse.

As I have told already it's the fact that Rorge and Biter are scared of Jaqen, the fact that there is a faceless man in the black cells without a backstory and the fact that grrm doesn't give an explicit (and in your eyes obvious) answer to a simple question that leads me to Jaqen is Syrio. Not the other way around.

Those things are not evidence that overcome the salient fact that Syrio and Jaqen were not the same person when Jaqen was first discussed in the text. Or the fact that the cells have been described as solitary torture chambers. They're unexplained anomalies about relatively minor characters. You've decided the anomalies are more important than textual evidence. So be it. I can't do that.

What you are missing is the fact that you do not have evidence, only assumptions.

I have textual canon, which I am evaluating and then using to form conclusions. That is the very definition of literary analysis.

First you say he writes from characters, but you fail to see how their fear was totally out of character. And all that, as you think, to make Arya respect Jaqen. Don't you think that would be a bit weak?

I don't fail to see anything. I simply disagree with you. Suggesting that I can't see something because I don't see it the same way you do is probably unfair.

I don't think fear is out of character for anyone. Every person I've ever met has certain things that make them uneasy. That Rorge and Biter are psychopaths doesn't change the fact that something could make them queasy, or that Jaqen might have discovered what it was and exploited it, thereby explaining their fear.

I don't know why these two characters were scared of Jaqen. It might be that they knew he was a Faceless Man, but I have strong textual support for the conclusion that it's highly unlikely they saw him as Syrio killing the real Jaqen in the black cells. Given that textual canon, I'm willing to exclude that event as having happened. I'm not willing to exclude the possibility that they knew he was a Faceless Man after some other event in some other place for some other reason. Just as I'm not willing to exclude any of the other myriad options. (Or for that matter to decide that one of those myriad options is the actual explanation.) Until Martin gives me evidence to explain why Rorge and Biter were scared of Jaqen, I accept it as an unexplained motivation for two minor characters, and one that moved the story forward.

Now let me say once more that it's perfectly fair that you see Rorge and Biter's fear as significant enough that it needs an explanation. If one never comes, then you can criticize Martin for making a mistake. (Which, really, he, like all writers, does from time to time.)

j

[cybroleach]

His reputation might be greater across the Narrow Sea than in King's Landing, whose denizens tend to know much more about legendary Westerosi knights like the Kingslayer or the Sword of the Morning than foreign people of varied renown such as the First Sword of Braavos, Strong Belwas, or even Areo Hotah and his Bearded Priest gorup. Actually, they don't even really know all that much about the Kingslayer or the Sword of the Morning. People in Westeros are really fricking stupid, is where I'm going with this. Ned could have said that Syrio is teaching Arya how to program in Javascript and all he'd get in respond was a slackjawed, glassy-eyed nod.

Ew, why'd you have to phrase it like that?

From Ned's perspective that's all Syrio is something to amuse Arya. If he serously wanted Arya trained she'd have learned from Ser Rodrik as Winterfell's master at arms, even in KL he can call upon Ser Aron as the master of arms. The reputation of Syrio that Ned is likely concerned about is Syrio not talking about their arrangement. He even wants to fire him for incompitance but lets Arya have it her way.

The whole point was to illistrait that this "all star warrior" is not serving the hand in very respectable position given his past and prospects if he did half the ninja stuff he supposedly does off screen. TSK might as well claim the guy scrubbing Ned's dishes would choose that over being Mace's steward since anything connect to Ned THE HANDS is desireable to better position not associated with THE HAND.

[Mad Monkey]

From Ned's perspective that's all Syrio is something to amuse Arya.

I agree, but you didn't have to call him her "plaything". That's just gross.

[The SmilingKnight]

As far as i remember THE HAND of Westeros hired him for express purposes of teaching his daughter to learn swordmanship, which was a heartwarming and very known scene by itself, i might add,

with specific intent of teaching her style more suited to her.

[Lord Godric]

I wouldn't assume that the inconclusiveness of Syrio's fate is one of the things he didn't consider in advance except that he's said as much in multiple interviews. On this, I'm inclined to take him at his word (because I can easily empathize with the experience).

Just out of curiousity, do you know which interviews? I'd like to see what he said about it.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Btw, maybe stupid question, and I am probably making myself ridiculous, but my memory fails. Do we know more about why he stopped being the first sword of Braavos? Was he to old and sent away?

We don't, but that seems to be the implication.

There is no such implication, only possibilities. Exile and forced retirement are two such possibilities, of course, but neither sits quite comfortably with the "excellent reputation" Syrio came with. Retirement by choice is at least equally possible, and a change of Sealord is also possible. Whatever happened to him, it seems not to have hurt his reputation. It also can't have much hurt his fighting - the five guardsmen with a wooden stick remains one of the most extraordinary displays of speed and skill anywhere in the series.

Syrio appears in the first book of a long series, so the lack of a complete backstory is NOT surprising. It leaves the door open for endless speculation, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Unlike Jaqen, whose behavior was ambiguous and weird, Syrio acted very credibly like a former First Sword.

Anyway, I don't see much need to imagine a backstory to flesh out Syrio Forel. The fact that Syrio is Braavosi, as is the House of B&W, seems sufficient coincidence to look forward, instead, for such completion, because I think Martin originally made tentative plans to reunite Syrio and Arya in Braavos. I doubt George had much inkling, then, of how many books and years it would take to get to that point! In the meantime he may have given up on Syrio, but I hope not.

[jjames36]

Hey, I like your writing and evidence-centric analysis! But of course I'm writing to disagree with the above point.

Martin has demonstrated consummate skill in setting up uncertainties and hints - the TOJ, the brief Bran/Rickon murders, the RW, the Stark errors about Tyrion - pick almost any topic at random and you will find fans arguing two opposing interpretations. As such, your assumption that he just set up a scene to tug at Arya's (and the reader's) heart, and didn't realize he was setting up a highly inconclusive scene that would provoke argument, seems to seriously underestimate him.

You're right. Martin is extraordinary at setting up mysteries, uncertainties and anomalies. This is one of many reasons he's a better writer than most other authors.

That said, from an authorial perspective there is a great difference between Syrio's death or survival and the other examples you listed here. What is it? The Tower of Joy is repeatedly referenced throughout several books. Bran/Rickon murders is referenced at least twice, and I believe three times, in the brief period between the mystery and the knowledge. The Stark errors are continually called into question via characters in King's Landing (Petyr) and the north (Jon). Jon's partentage is repeatedly referenced in every volume. It is these repeated references that draws the reader's attention to the anomaly and causes alert readers to start questioning them and formulating theories.

I submit: had Martin intended for Syrio's death or survival to evoke so much controversy and debate, said character's fate would commonly be discussed by characters in the book and/or the narrator. It isn't. Not once by the narrator. And not once by a single character other Arya (I can't remember how many times she thinks about it). Which, in addition to Martin's own remarks that the debate surprises him, makes me think it wasn't a controversy Martin intended. If he had intended it, he would have frequently brought it up the way that he did the other mysteries (Prince that was Promised, Azor Ahai, and so on) in this book.

Like I said before, no writer can predict everything the readers will respond to. What I didn't say is this: one of the things that makes one writer better than another is that readers respond to so much more in the greats' work.

j

[jjames36]

Just out of curiousity, do you know which interviews? I'd like to see what he said about it.

They were referenced earlier in this thread by other posters. I myself haven't seen them--I visit this message board frequently because I find many of the discussions interesting, but that's the only Martin-related thing I do online.

But. Go back and reread the earlier pages on the thread and you'll find the posters who have encountered said interviews.

j

[jjames36]

Anyway, I don't see much need to imagine a backstory to flesh out Syrio Forel. The fact that Syrio is Braavosi, as is the House of B&W, seems sufficient coincidence to look forward, instead, for such completion, because I think Martin originally made tentative plans to reunite Syrio and Arya in Braavos. I doubt George had much inkling, then, of how many books and years it would take to get to that point! In the meantime he may have given up on Syrio, but I hope not.

This is the second time you've referenced the five year gap, and how it explains why Martin hasn't reintroduced us to Syrio yet. I thereby decided to respond.

As I understand it, the five gap was meant to happen between books three and four, not earlier in the series. Because he decided to move away from that gap, he created the Meereneese Knot, which he is now fixing in Dance. Admittedly, the series was not originally planned to be seven books, but two and a half books were written before the lost five year gap became a factor. And in those two and a half books, Syrio was mentioned precisely . . . well . . . once by a character not named Arya. And that was in the conversation Trant didn't really tell Cersei what happened to Arya's dancing instructor.

In other words, there is little evidence in the book to conclude that Martin intends for Arya and Syrio to reunite. It's interesting speculation, but that is all it is at this point.

j

[AvengingAryaFan]

That said, from an authorial perspective there is a great difference between Syrio's death or survival and the other examples you listed here. What is it? The Tower of Joy is repeatedly referenced throughout several books. Bran/Rickon murders is referenced at least twice, and I believe three times, in the brief period between the mystery and the knowledge. The Stark errors are continually called into question via characters in King's Landing (Petyr) and the north (Jon). Jon's partentage is repeatedly referenced in every volume. It is these repeated references that draws the reader's attention to the anomaly and causes alert readers to start questioning them and formulating theories.

I submit: had Martin intended for Syrio's death or survival to evoke so much controversy and debate, said character's fate would commonly be discussed. It isn't. Not once by a single character other Arya (and I can't remember how many times she even thinks about it). Which, in addition to Martin's own remarks that the debate surprises him, makes me think it wasn't a controversy Martin intended.

The differences, as you might say, are myriad. Unlike the other examples, this one takes the form of a classic writing ... technique:

The setup is dramatic, the cutoff at the apex of danger: lights, action ... see that poor unarmored Syrio! the imperviously armored knight! the sheared wooden stick! the ARGHH, THEY'VE TURNED OFF THE LIGHTS! This is CLASSIC cliffhanger action - Martin does lots of them, Brienne, et al., being more recent, commercial TV cliffhanger scripts farther back. You mean to tell me you believe a competent author can do one of these so incredibly dramatically and not realize he's setting it up? I could accept that about a less talented writer, but NOT about Martin.

So I respectfully submit that you are grossly shortchanging Martin - that he clearly DID know he was setting up a cliffhanger.

Even an idiot viewer knows that cliffhangers are set up to elicit suspense, uncertainty, concern, and a desire to determine the outcome - this is TV screenwriting 101, fer cryin' out loud - How to Ensure Your Audience Returns On Schedule! Your authorial training may not have stooped to cover crass commercial TV techniques, but GRRM's did. Even if you believe you could have done such a blatant cliffhanger by accident, I find it astonishing temerity to publicly suggest that George could.

So I cannot accept your appeal to authorial authority, but must conclude based on my own intelligent experience with GRRM that he DID know he was setting up a cliffhanger, and he DID realize cliffhangers excite a desire for resolution. If those conclusions are true then Martin's deafening silence about the outcome is HIGHLY suspicious.

You seem to have recognized the incongruity of GRRM's silence if Syrio is dead. Yet you double down on your conclusion that Syrio is dead and instead explain the incongruity by drawing a frankly ludicrous conclusion about Martin's silence: that it happened by accident because Syrio was so beneath notice.

I'm sorry, Martin is way too skilled for an "oh gee, look what I did!" dodge. However he justifies his evasions about not expecting so much controversy (and the options are endless), I absolutely do not believe for an instant it's because he didn't know what he was doing and fell into that cliffhanger by accident. Snort.

When combining your first conclusion (Syrio is dead) with other facts leads you to such a frankly absurd conclusion about Martin's writing, I think you really need to reconsider your first conclusion.

ETA: sigh, sorry about the ... intensity.

[jjames36]

You seem to have recognized the incongruity of GRRM's silence if Syrio is dead. Yet you double down on your conclusion that Syrio is dead and instead explain the incongruity by drawing a frankly ludicrous conclusion about Martin's silence: that it happened by accident because Syrio was so beneath notice.

First, much of this post was well crafted argument. An argument I disagree with, mind you, for reasons I'll get into in a moment, but a strong argument nonetheless. However, the quoted paragraph above is a gross misrepresentation of my position. I have made very few positive statements in this thread, and at no point has one of those positive statements been that Syrio is dead. I allow for the fact that he may well be alive. I also allow for the fact that he may well be dead. I don't know what the result of that fight with Trant was, because Martin hasn't told me. Go back and read my posts. I started by saying he might be alive. I repeated that line numerous times throughout, though I once said I doubt he's going to be included in our story again. This is the second time you've decided I think Syrio is dead. I don't. And you're not drawing that conclusion from anything I've written, which, if I'm being honest, makes me question how much you're actually "listening" to anything I'm saying. For clarity's sake, I thought I'd call out the positive and negative statements I've actually made. Hopefully by calling them out so plainly, we can avoid further miscommunication.

The postive statements: 1. The black cells are solitary torture chambers. 2. Trant is still alive.

The positive statements I think are quite possible: Martin genuinely might not have realized the furor Syrio's fate would create in his fan base.

The only strong conclusion I've made, which let me point out is actually a negative statement: Syrio and Jaqen are almost certainly not the same person.

Having gotten that out of the way, let me move onto the point you were making in this post.

Cliffhangers. From the beginning of the novels, Martin uses them with insane regularity, yes. Bran being thrown off a building. Dany being told she would have to marry the barbarian Khal Drogo, whom we assume at that point is a horrid individual. Tyrion being arrested by Catelyn. The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on.

But from an authorial perspective there are three obvious and major differences between these intentional cliffhangers and the one you've decided qualifies vis a vis Syrio. First, all of those other cliffhangers (Bran, Arya's blindness, Jon abandoning the Night's Watch, Davos "dying" on the burning waterway, etc) are specifically about our POV character, in other words, a protagonist. Second, all of those other cliffhangers come at the end of chapters, many at the end of books. And third, the results of those cliffhangers are revealed very quickly after they're written. (The ones in Feast will probably take a bit longer given the dual timeline thing Martin's working on with Dance, but otherwise, we never waited long to see the result, from Bran's survival after his "fall," to Dany meeting Drogo and realizing he's actually quite gentle and loving, to Jon's friends convincing him to return to the Wall and so forth.)

Now let's look at this Syrio "cliffhanger". He's a minor character who's ultimate backstory and motivations were never explained, not a POV and certainly not a protagonist. The "cliffhanger" happens in the middle of the chapter, not the end. And the answer to that "cliffhanger" hasn't been revealed for three and a half books. (Let me also point out, just for the hell of it, that Syrio's fight with Trant isn't even the climax of that chapter--Arya has a long flight through the Red Keep, during which the action continues to rise for several pages.)

The fact, then, that there is a "cliffhanger" means nothing to me. Why? Because it doesn't meet any of the requirements that Martin's actual cliffhangers, the ones that are so clearly intentional, share. For that matter, it doesn't meet the nature of cliffhangers in television either. All of 24's cliffhangers were addressed instantly the moment the next episode or season started. Ditto that for the Lost cliffhangers. The Dexter cliffhangers. The Sex in the City cliffhangers (the few there were). Hell, even the 30 Rock cliffhangers. On further thought, I'd even submit that it is terrible writing to intentionally craft a cliffhanger and then just leave it unanswered for some 4500 published pages. Are you telling me Martin, this author you hold in such high esteem, would use the kind of terrible writing that would instantly get a television show cancelled? Take Friends for example. At the end of one season, Ross gets married but says Rachel's name during the ceremony. You really think the Friends' writers would have been allowed to ignore that cliffhanger for the next three and a half episodes, much less three and a half seasons, before the studio said, "Um. Excuse me. What about Ross and Rachel and that chick he married? Yeah. Answer that." You must, if you think Martin purposefully wrote Syrio's final moments in the series as a cliffhanger.

In the end, it seems I have more faith in Martin than you do. I don't think he'd intentionally do such a stupid, amateurish thing as write a cliffhanger and then leave his readers hanging for three and a half published books. Seems to me that the notion that this is what he's done only provides another argument in favor of the possibility that he really didn't realize the reaction Syrio's fate would generate. He is much too good a writer to keep his readers on the rope he purposefully tied us to for this long.

j

[Roi Woodt]

Exile and forced retirement are two such possibilities, of course, but neither sits quite comfortably with the "excellent reputation" Syrio came with. Whatever happened to him, it seems not to have hurt his reputation. It also can't have much hurt his fighting - the five guardsmen with a wooden stick remains one of the most extraordinary displays of speed and skill anywhere in the series.

Ofcourse, there must be a reason, even if he already was a faceless man, but I do agree that forced retirement doesn't seem likely for someone like him. Why can't he just give clear answers... (he=grrm)

Retirement by choice is at least equally possible, and a change of Sealord is also possible.

Hmm, you think so? The first sword of Braavos does not run! These two are imo the least likely.

[Roi Woodt]

Mostly I think you and I, Roi Woodt, are at an impasse and that continued debating is only going to result in regurgitated arguments that won't, in fact, move the conversation forward. We'll see if you prove me wrong on that front. :-)

I've been at this point very often, once again reached an impasse. But there will be a day that I can prove you wrong. :-)

I don't fail to see anything. I simply disagree with you. Suggesting that I can't see something because I don't see it the same way you do is probably unfair.

A bit probably, but I find it strange that you on one hand tell me it's all about the characters, but on the other hand you are not finding it odd that two (not minor, but medium (don't know how to call them)) characters behave totally out of character without an explanation.

Now let me say once more that it's perfectly fair that you see Rorge and Biter's fear as significant enough that it needs an explanation. If one never comes, then you can criticize Martin for making a mistake. (Which, really, he, like all writers, does from time to time.)

I think, in the end, you can criticize him for not telling all about the black cells.

[Roi Woodt]

Just a suggestion, but maybe it's not the fame he's after. Maybe Ned just paid him well. ;)

And the occupation is honourable enough. I can't understand the notion that Syrio teaching swordcraft is somehow unbelievable because the pupil is a 10 year old girl.

Because he can do so much more. Ned doesn't look like the person that would hire Syrio for an enormous amount of money. I really can't believe he did this for the money, not with his skills.

The occupation would be honourable if he wasn't a dancing master, but a fencing master or something like that. But apparently he doesn't want people to know how (extremely) good he is, and probably doesn't give about the honor involved, but just wants to teach. If he just wanted to teach, he has plenty of oppotunities in KingsLanding and he doesn't have to go all the way North.

The way I see it, he deliberately keeps his skills hidden. I can imagine that Ned wants it that way, but what's the reason for Syrio.

Would it be perfectly credible if he'd been teaching Tommen instead?

If he did it openly and his swordmanship would show off on him, I could see a reason, but the same counts for Arya. Not if he did it secretly, because Tommen is not supposed to be learning how to fight.

[mormont]

The occupation would be honourable if he wasn't a dancing master, but a fencing master or something like that.

He is a fencing master.

Or did you mean if he wasn't posing as a dancing master? But that would suggest that Syrio was bothered about what other people thought of him, in other words concerned with appearances rather than reality - kind of goes against what we know of him, doesn't it? ;)

Syrio seems to me to be rather like Ned - he knows that honour is not to do with what other people think of you, but something you judge yourself.

If he just wanted to teach, he has plenty of oppotunities in KingsLanding and he doesn't have to go all the way North.

But he seems fond of Arya, and has nothing that we know of tying him to KL. So why shouldn't he go with the Starks when they leave KL?

The way I see it, he deliberately keeps his skills hidden. I can imagine that Ned wants it that way, but what's the reason for Syrio.

There could be a hundred reasons. Not wanting to have to fight challengers. Needing to keep a low profile for some reason connected with his exit from Braavos. Just generally not being bothered about fame. No mystery here. This is a very minor point, not something you can hang a theory on.