Syrio Forel

[Mad Monkey]

Like Arya, there's so much that Martin does better than anybody - it's regrettable (for me, at least) that doesn't seem to be enough for you.

I don't think that Errant Bard is criticizing Martin's writing so much as he is criticizing this theory. I don't think that it's accurate to conflate the theory and the book together as if they're interchangeable.

[AvengingAryaFan]

For decency's sake, would you stop saying someone who dies in a battle they chose to enter to "committed suicide". It's fucking insulting to anyone who's ever lost friends or family who died risking their lives to save other people. If you can't understand the difference between making intentional attempt to die and being willing to risk your life for something, fine. It's your personal problem. But stop flaunting it.

And now Trant apparently has the ability to run away while being tripped and down, since he's so clumsy and slow but a devil at getting up and running away. Seriously, listen to yourself.

@Rakka, for decency's sake I should listen to YOU, right? I'm so impressed you can say fucking - so avante garde and edgy.

You've lost a friend or family risking their life to save somebody else? Or you "just know" how they all feel? If the former, tell the truth about the situation and you'll find it's not comparable to Syrio fighting Trant, et al.

If the latter, you're no expert. I lost my uncle fighting heroically in a war for his country. Those he left behind are not insulted, and I'm confident he would not be insulted ... because he would recognize that Syrio was not a warrior fighting a war of necessity, or in any other way giving up his life of necessity for a higher cause.

I have no problem with Syrio having "risked his life" - that's what I think he did; I just think it was a small risk. But YOU fail to understand this idea of Syrio risking his life.

If Syrio was merely "risking his life" in taking on Trant plus five guardsmen, then what was the level of risk after he had killed all the five guardsmen and faced only Trant? You DON'T understand, do you? If the risk was merely reasonable to start, and was greatly reduced by the guardsmen's deaths, then it was a fairly small risk. Syrio had a very good chance against Trant alone, Q.E.D.

You can escape that conclusion by denying the premise, i.e., if Syrio was not merely risking his life, but entering a fight he had no chance of winning. In that case, however, either Syrio was committing suicide, as some have claimed, or else he had to essentially sacrifice his life of necessity for a higher cause. Otherwise, the logic compels the conclusion that "Syrio had a very good chance against Trant alone".

Have you grasped, yet, that you lose the argument unless it was necessary for Syrio to lay his life down for a higher cause?

So now prove to me that it was necessary for Syrio to engage with Trant, et al., to the death, for a higher cause. Prove, or strongly support - don't merely state it, that's not even evidence. Make the case. Or quit whining about my calling it suicide, and hypocritically demanding "decency".

As for Trant being able to run away when he's been knocked down - does that REALLY challenge your imagination? According to my theory of the fight, Trant is knocked down shortly after Arya leaves (because losing the stick was a sacrifice to off balance Trant). At that time Syrio still did not have a real sword. So before Syrio could hurt Trant, he had to get one of the downed weapons, and then he had to manage to insert it into one of joints of the armor, all the while with Trant thrashing around with his own sword while he tries to get up and run. So, killing the fully armored Trant isn't all that easy, isn't instantaneous - but will happen if Trant doesn't get away promptly.

My theory has Trant realizing he's overmatched, for example as a result of being knocked down, before Syrio has a real sword in hand. Trant could get to his feet while Syrio is getting a sword, or could battle to his feet if necessary. He has a whole bunch of protection; but it's not impregnable, and if Trant is a coward with no reason to continue to try to kill Syrio, why would he continue to fight when he has realized he's overmatched? Armor is defensive - I'm saying it defended Trant sufficiently for him to get up and get away. Do you really not get that, or are you just playing dumb?

Seriously, listen to yourself.

[cybroleach]

+1. Short, to the point, and perfectly sensible. I think we can be confident that the reply to this will remarkably long, to generate sufficient fog to try to obfuscate the issue.

You just love being the smartest kid in class dont you, :smug:

[Mad Monkey]

It just occurred to me that if Trant really did defeat Syrio, he's actually the most badass fighter left on the Kingsguard, isn't he?

Isn't that a scary thought?

[AvengingAryaFan]

+1. Short, to the point, and perfectly sensible. I think we can be confident that the reply to this will remarkably long, to generate sufficient fog to try to obfuscate the issue.

It's true I have no talent for brevity.

I'm shocked that you would gratuitously impugn my motives and honesty, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with my point by point challenge to the textual support for your "suicidal Syrio" theory, which you viciously attacked with only a straw man and vituperation. Surely you're not ... vindictive?

[cybroleach]

It just occurred to me that if Trant really did defeat Syrio, he's actually the most badass fighter left on the Kingsguard, isn't he?

Isn't that a scary thought?

I really don't see that elivating him as a fighter over Ser Balon a master of three weapons Lance, Morningstar and Bow. He's also nifty with a mace as shown on the BotB. vs killing an unarmed man.

[corbon]

For decency's sake, would you stop saying someone who dies in a battle they chose to enter to "committed suicide". It's fucking insulting to anyone who's ever lost friends or family who died risking their lives to save other people. If you can't understand the difference between making intentional attempt to die and being willing to risk your life for something, fine. It's your personal problem. But stop flaunting it.

+1 more.

I also don't recall anyone claiming suicidal tendencies except gross misrepresentations by people arguing against that idea.

No one said anything about suicidal tendencies, but it was extrapolated out incompetently and, frankly, turned the 'Syrio is alive' arguments into a mockery of themselves by railing against this false idea created by the Syrio is alive side, rather than actual ideas of the Syrio is dead side.

Give it up. No one thinks Syrio was suicidal.

[AvengingAryaFan]

I don't think that Errant Bard is criticizing Martin's writing so much as he is criticizing this theory. I don't think that it's accurate to conflate the theory and the book together as if they're interchangeable.

No, it wouldn't be accurate. The theory and the book are not interchangeable.

I was making two points about EB, related in that I consider both to reflect excessive demands of Arya. One of the points addresses EB's criticism of my "Syrio lives" theory, and the other doesn't.

My "Syrio lives" theory includes optional conjecture that Syrio might return as something like a mentor to Arya, and EB objects to my theory in part on the basis that a mentor would impair Arya's independence and worth. I think EB asks too much of Arya to demand that she have no further mentors, given that the important boys get mentors to an age far beyond Arya's.

EB's other excessive demand of Arya isn't a criticism of my "Syrio lives" theory, though it may flavor his attitude toward the theory. EB has often expressed a strong desire for George to subvert Arya's trope by making her really dark. I believe it asks too much of Martin in creating Arya: Martin has demonstrated that Arya remains highly empathetic, and thus is not really darkening (though she may kill a lot of people - that isn't dark for a warrior). Moreover, fans are already uneasy about Arya, and as a high screen-time character, I believe it is too much to ask Martin to thus sacrifice Arya's popularity to make her extremely dark. Martin specifically does not show an inclination to make Arya truly dark, and generally doesn't show an inclination to make central characters go really dark; so in this desire, I submit that EB asks too much of Martin. This second point isn't a defense of my "Syrio lives" theory, just a related matter.

I regret if my presentation of these two related points made you think I conflated my theory and the book. I did not.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I'm shocked that you would gratuitously impugn my motives and honesty, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with my point by point challenge to the textual support for your "suicidal Syrio" theory, which you viciously attacked with only a straw man and vituperation. Surely you're not ... vindictive?

You complain about strawmen, while continuing to foist your own strawman interpretation on me. I and others have repeatedly and explicitly made the distinction between dieing in the line of duty and suicide, but despite that you cling to your own twisted version of it like a bad odor on a garbage can. And complaining about vindictiveness is typically hypocritical of you after "I'm so impressed you can say fucking - so avante garde and edgy." and "Do you really not get that, or are you just playing dumb?"

On the "suicide" comments that you insist on misrepresenting, Syrio was a bodyguard of a head of state much like the KG, who are sworn to father no children, hold no lands, and to live their lives entirely for the King, so if at any moment they need to give their lives for their king...a fragment of their vow, as quoted by Barristan...they will have as few conflicts with their duty as possible. No thoughts of "but if I die, who will take care of my wife, who I love so dear? Who will protect my children?" that could cause them to fail in their duties. When I pointed out that Syrio doesn't have anything terribly compelling to live for I meant nothing to make him waver or falter when his employer's daughter was threatened. In the KG's case, that is by design. Does their living their lives solely for duty make them suicidal? No, and neither would it for Syrio, if he doesn't have any family ties tugging at him, away from his identity as a "sword".

[AvengingAryaFan]

+1 more.

I also don't recall anyone claiming suicidal tendencies except gross misrepresentations by people arguing against that idea.

No one said anything about suicidal tendencies, but it was extrapolated out incompetently and, frankly, turned the 'Syrio is alive' arguments into a mockery of themselves by railing against this false idea created by the Syrio is alive side, rather than actual ideas of the Syrio is dead side.

Give it up. No one thinks Syrio was suicidal.

Consider some of the actual ideas of the Syrio is dead side:

So now he's an old man, very skilled, but

with what to look forward to exactly?

Family? If so, what is he doing in exile in Westeros?

...Why on earth would he go back on his declaration and the bravo culture that he has lived his life by,

just to survive and grow older, watching his teeth fall out one by one?

Why wouldn't he

embrace the chance to go out in a blaze of glory

, like any bravo would dream of?

Fighting to the death would hardly be 'stupid'

from his perspective ...

To you, interpreting the above passages as describing someone who is suicidal is "gross misrepresentations" and "incompetently extrapolated out". You're entitled to your opinion, but I stand by my contention that this is a description of somebody who is tired of life, ready to lay it down because they have nothing to look forward to but watching their teeth fall out. They are looking merely for an opportunity to die with some glory.

This conjecture about Syrio being ready to die because he's old and doesn't want to sit around and watch his teeth fall out is fabricated from whole cloth, unsupported by any textual hints; but it is all quoted from OiL, who set it forth to support a conclusion that Syrio must be dead. Don't challenge it, and do insist that it doesn't suggest Syrio is suicidal; I like to clearly understand the limitations of people who argue with me.

[Mad Monkey]

I really don't see that elivating him as a fighter over Ser Balon a master of three weapons Lance, Morningstar and Bow. He's also nifty with a mace as shown on the BotB. vs killing an unarmed man.

Okay, Balon aside -- he has to be pretty hardcore. Do you think Goldenhand or Boros the Belly could have flattened Syrio "First Sword" Forel?

[Guest Other-in-Law]

But if Syrio was not stupid, suicidal, or crazy, then he believed there was a substantial chance that he could survive a fight with five Lannister guardsmen and Meryn Trant. The premise is almost certainly true, so the conclusion is also almost certainly true.

At this point AAF parses Syrio engaging in a fight that would lead to his death with three, and only three, possible explanations: suicide, insanity, or stupidity. No room at all for someone who doesn't actively desire death but is willing to accept it...and the possibility of death in the line of duty was a constant in his chosen career... as a preferable than than cowardice or capitulation.

And yet, later in the this thread, after a quote of mine from a different thread in 2008 was brought, AAF refuses to take responsibility for this "suicide" interpretation.

Erm, it's your theory that Syrio is tired of life, looking for any excuse to fight and kill each other, wantonly risking his life, has nothing to look forward to but watching his teeth fall out one by one

A consistent strawman, at least, to keep denigrating all opinions that Syrio could have fought a hopeless fight out for honour and a noble purpose as "suicide".

"Why would he want to survive and grow older, watching his teeth fall out"? The clearest statement yet of your belief, completely unsupported by the text, that Syrio is tired of life and ready to die. Selmy isn't suicidal, and he's had more taken from him than Syrio.

Telling other people what they believe, despite them insisting the opposite? My point about Syrio's future prospects has nothing whatsoever to do with despair or being tired of life. It's that his life probably has little that would tempt him to abandon his ideals, should he have to choose between the two.

All other things being equal, Syrio has no need to choose to die. But when the young girl who he was retained to teach is threatened by armed men, all other things are not equal.

[AvengingAryaFan]

...For instance, you complain about strawmen, while continuing to foist your own strawman interpretation on me. I and others have repeatedly and explicitly made the distinction between dieing in the line of duty and suicide, but despite that you cling to your own twisted version of it ...

On the "suicide" comments that you insist on misrepresenting, Syrio was a bodyguard of a head of state much like the KG, who are sworn to father no children, hold no lands, and to live their lives entirely for the King, so if at any moment they need to give their lives for...a fragment of their vow, as quoted by Barristan...they will not have as few conflicts with their duty as possible. No thoughts of "but if I die, who will take care of my wife? Who will protect my children?" that could cause them to fail in their duties. When I pointed out that Syrio doesn't have anything terribly compelling to live for that could make him falter when his employer's daughter was threatened. In the KG's case, that is by design. Does their living their lives solely for duty make them suicidal? No, and neither would it for Syrio, if he doesn't have any family ties tugging at him, away from his identity as a "sword".

It's not unreasonable to imagine that a First Sword contract might include features to minimize conflicts of interest - though a good life insurance policy would have the same effect and be less punitive than a vow against parenthood and ownership.

In any event, textually this has no bearing: Barristan Selmy, similarly situated as Syrio and even similarly hale and hearty, was relieved suddenly and contrary to his will from his lifelong duty. If either of the two was to be depressed and have nothing to look forward to, it should have been Selmy. Yet Selmy had so much desire to live that he killed a couple of people sent to arrest him, and then traveled resourcefully and far to take up a new life. There is no textual hint that Selmy is looking for a glorious death, let alone an inglorious one; his battle with the Bastard suggests he has ample spunk left. Likewise, Syrio's battle with the five guardsmen shows HE has plenty of spunk left. There is simply no textual suggestion that Syrio, any more than Selmy, is ready to lay his life down unnecessarily.

I'm perfectly willing to be in agreement that Syrio was not suicidal. I'm sure that your implication that Syrio's only reason for living would be to watch his teeth fall out one by one was unintentional, a colorful phrase that ran away with you. Since you agree he was not suicidal, will you take the next logical step and confirm that, like Selmy, we have every reason to assume Syrio had a strong desire to live?

This isn't a trick. I'm not asking you to say he would be cowardly or unwilling to take risk - Selmy and Syrio both clearly do not shrink from some risks. I will argue that they both take calculated risks, not hopeless risks, but that is a different argument. In the meantime, I'd like to get on record that the only reasonable conclusion is that Syrio was NOT suicidal, and would therefore do everything reasonable (consistent with his obligations and pride) to ensure his continued existence.

Then we can back down and take a look at the argument that he gave up his life as a necessity of his duty and pride. It's an argument I'd be happy to have and, thankfully, a different one.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Then we can back down and take a look at the argument that he gave up his life as a necessity of his duty and pride. It's an argument I'd be happy to have and, thankfully, a different one.

Fine. I'd be happy to leave all the sniping about suicide behind.

Since you agree he was not suicidal, will you take the next logical step and confirm that, like Selmy, we have every reason to assume Syrio had a strong desire to live?

Sure. And the comedian Rob Schneider once stated that he had a strong desire to play for the New York Yankees, but that didn't mean he had the ability to do so. Wanting doesn't guarantee achieving.

In any event, textually this has no bearing: Barristan Selmy, similarly situated as Syrio and even similarly hale and hearty, was relieved suddenly and contrary to his will from his lifelong duty. If either of the two was to be depressed and have nothing to look forward to, it should have been Selmy. Yet Selmy had so much desire to live that he killed a couple of people sent to arrest him, and then traveled resourcefully and far to take up a new life. There is no textual hint that Selmy is looking for a glorious death, let alone an inglorious one; his battle with the Bastard suggests he has ample spunk left.Likewise, Syrio's battle with the five guardsmen shows HE has plenty of spunk left.

And Barristan's slaying of the goldcloaks sent to arrest him is pretty comparable to Syrio slaying the five redcloaks. Both were a very impressive feat for an unarmoured man, but they were both fights against lightly armoured common men-at-arms. Not the same level of protection or skill as a fully armoured knight.

There is simply no textual suggestion that Syrio, any more than Selmy, is ready to lay his life down unnecessarily.

But there was no necessity for Barristan. He no longer had a king to protect, he had been cast off. At that moment, no one to protect besides himself. By the time he's outside Yunkai, he has Dany to protect, and a somewhat more formidable opponent in Mero, but he's also completely unarmoured, and didn't pose any insurmountable challenge. If in the future he stood between his Queen and a foe who was more than he was capable of defeating, I think he would willingly die in order to give her whatever advantage he could by doing so.

And the entire fight is textual evidence that Syrio thought protecting Arya was a necessity. He chose to undertake protecting her from enemy soldiers.

[AvengingAryaFan]

But if Syrio was not stupid, suicidal, or crazy, then he believed there was a substantial chance that he could survive a fight with five Lannister guardsmen and Meryn Trant. The premise is almost certainly true, so the conclusion is also almost certainly true.

At this point AAF parses Syrio engaging in a fight that would lead to his death with three, and only three, possible explanations: suicide, insanity, or stupidity. No room at all for someone who doesn't actively desire death but is willing to accept it...and the possibility of death in the line of duty was a constant in his chosen career... as a preferable than than cowardice or capitulation.

You are mistaken. My quoted text provides a very great deal of room for Syrio to risk death in the service of his pride, his line of duty, his self confidence. I only assert that there is a "substantial chance that he could survive". All the rest is the chance that he could die. (How much is that ... what is left over after you take out a substantial part of something?)

Erm, it's your theory that Syrio is tired of life, looking for any excuse to fight and kill each other, wantonly risking his life, has nothing to look forward to but watching his teeth fall out one by one

And yet, later in the this thread, after a quote of mine from a different thread in 2008 was brought, AAF refuses to take responsibility for this "suicide" interpretation.

Erm, those are your words I'm citing, OiL. I'm happy to agree that Syrio is not suicidal, that he most likely has as strong a desire to live as anybody - will you agree, so we can lay that issue to rest?

But no reasonable, honest and intelligent person would fail to conclude that your words implied that Syrio was willing to give up his life because he was tired of it and had nothing to look forward to.

Bullshit, huh? A consistent strawman, at least, to keep denigrating all opinions that Syrio could have fought a hopeless fight out for honour and a noble purpose as "suicide".

Telling other people what they believe, despite them insisting the opposite? My point about Syrio's future prospects has nothing whatsoever to do with despair or being tired of life. It's that his life probably has little that would tempt him to abandon his ideals, should he have to choose between the two.

Far be it for me to tell you what you believe, but I can fairly tell you what your words state. Once published, words mean what they mean objectively, not what you might have intended them to mean. And your words clearly convey despondency and lack of future for Syrio Forel. Nothing whatsoever to do with that? If you dare seriously assert that, I can see why you think I have no integrity: projection.

All other things being equal, Syrio has no need to choose to die. But when the young girl who he was retained to teach is threatened by armed men, all other things are not equal.

Ah, you'd like to have him "not suicidal" but also not actually interested in continuing to live - to have it both ways - while asserting indignantly that this has nothing to do with his being "suicidal". Go, OiL.

I say we have every reason to assume that Syrio is just as fond of life as anybody else, and no reason at all to suppose that he's just as happy to die as not. There's no textual mention of his worrying about watching his teeth fall out, no textual mention of having an empty life with nothing to offer, no textual mention of any lack of interest in life. His demeanor is chipper. The closest age and circumstance matched person, Barristan Selmy, shows every evidence of a strong will to survive, and to seek out and lead a meaningful life. To actively seek a future. Do you have ANY textual reason to suppose that Syrio would be less fond of life than Barristan Selmy? It's all imagination, isn't it?

ETA: we're overlapping, and I'd also as soon drop the sniping. If we can just agree that Syrio wants to stay alive if possible, consistent with his duty and pride, we can move the argument forward.

[Rakka]

You've lost a friend or family risking their life to save somebody else?

No. I just know personally the difference between being suidical and not being afraid of death. It's quite a large difference. How many times must people explain things to you? Or does your defiance to reading what's in a given text and attempting to read what you imagine seeing behind it extend to forum posts?

So now prove to me that it was necessary for Syrio to engage with Trant, et al., to the death, for a higher cause. Prove, or strongly support - don't merely state it, that's not even evidence. Make the case.

Says the queen of flimsily cobbled theories. But whatever, I'll humor you and then be done with you, since it's obvious you're the one who's entrenched in her theories and there's really no point in talking to you.

Do you fence? Have you ever used a sword? I'm going to assume no, since you haven't claimed personal knowledge about fighting. That's usually something you'd mention in a thread about a swordfight.

Syrio was defending, not engaging or "closing in". It's usually necessary to have some contact with blades no matter how astonishing you are at dodging, just to be safer - just stepping aside from the blow may be enough, but it's usually better to parry and sidestep rather than just one. Syrio does sidestep in the battle with Trant, and earlier, so it's a technique he can use. Judging with my some years of personal experience, just dodging instead of parrying is something you only do when damn certain it's not needed to also parry. It's not something I'd do when fighting to win, simply because of the possibility that I was wrong and the opponent could turn the blow. More often than not you NEED to parry to avoid being hit. Especially if the ground is treacherous and littered with dead bodies and puddles of blood that prevent safe retreat. Thus your insistance that "Syrio's sword breaking is an evidence of him engaging Trant" is quite silly.

Syrio uses a wooden sword to parry and deflect several blows before the one that breaks it. Some of our axes are in quite interesting shape after years of use, but we use dull swords. A sharp one would cause the wood to be cut and splintered way faster, which is why Syrio also sidesteps a lot - he's avoiding more stress to his weapon. Ultimately, it's not enough and he loses the weapon. It's Trant who is aggressively engaging Syrio.

This is where Arya's eyes leave the scene and things become speculation. Syrio has said he doesn't run, and Trant is alive after the battle. I don't claim to know what happened, but I do think your theory doesn't hold water.

Syrio has two choises there - keep his distance, or try to trip Trant. The first is more difficult now that he doesn't have anything to keep Trant at a distance, and he can just avoid Trant instead of actively parrying and deflecting blows. Trant does have limited visibility due to the visor, but he can just slide his foot forward, he's not likely to trip over a dead body in front of him. So Syrio dances around Trant, gets away from the dead bodies to get more leeway since he's going to be the one who's taking blind steps. And then what? He hasn't got any weapons to attack OR to defend with. Continue that until Trant faints from exertion?

If Syrio tries to close in to unbalance Trant, he's getting in range of Trant's sword. That would be either from further away, kicking at Trant's armoured knees: poleyns have side flares for a reason. It would be very difficult to get a toe in, it'd have to be from the inside of the foot, and he'd be in Trant's sword's reach without a weapon to defend himself with. Trant may be slow but he's not so slow Syrio would have the time to dance a full 180 degrees behind him, either.

If Syrio tries to close in to wrestling distance, he's smaller than Trant, unlikely to have wrestling experience, and again, unarmoured and without weapons. Trant on the other hand likely has training with sword wrestling and knows funny tricks like poking someone in the eye with the crossguard. Wrestling with someone heavier, taller and more skilled is only a good idea if you don't mind losing and they buy you a beer afterwards.

Syrio's best option for living would be to turn and run. But he's said he won't. So he grabs a sword from one of the dead guys, uses it to defend himself for the maneuver it takes to trip Trant over, and then...

As for Trant being able to run away when he's been knocked down - does that REALLY challenge your imagination?

So, let's assume Syrio trips Trant over, just for the sake of dissecting the options there. If Syrio has the time to pick up a sword from one of the fallen guards, then although he hasn't got the experience with one, it's a heavier weapon and one more likely to make some damage to Trant's armour than a wooden stick.

Well, considering that if he continues to fight when down - if he still has his sword - he's going to be hard to kill if he focuses only on defence and avoids making mistakes, but won't be able to run away. Syrio on the other hand could, but he's said he doesn't run. It may be he considers Arya has had enough time to get a good head start, but what now? If he leaves Trant alive he's going to be a marked man, and not one who exactly blends in. Without stumbling onto a secret tunnel he won't get out of the Red Keep, the place is closed in tightly and there's no mention of a single man assaulting a group of backdoor guards. It's possible that such a thing happened and it wasn't mentioned in any POV, but if Martin intended to keep Syrio alive don't you think he'd have mentioned such an event? Don't think that one's very likely.

Also, if Trant goes down Syrio can pretty easily move to attack from near his head and sides, forcing him to fight in a really unnatural position that opens his armpits wide open. Even if a blow there doesn't penetrate the chainmail voiders, it'll hurt like a hell due to all the nice nerves there, and make him drop his guard, leading to further advantage to Syrio.

If Trant tries to get up, he's not able to fight back very well, and is at risk from attacks from above. He has to focus on getting up as well as defending, and such divided attention would surely give Syrio a further advantage. He has to extend his hand to hit Syrio, which gives an opening for the hand - that's a first blow, to the inside of the elbow where there's no plate armour. One useless arm. Now Syrio is free to hit him over the head as much as he likes, causing concussion and making Trant unable to fight until the point he can just flip Trant's visor up and skewer his face. We know that doesn't happen since Trant is alive.

Since your theory of "Syrio trips Trant, Trant channels the Flash and runs away" is only possible if Syrio allows Trant to escape when he has no reason to, it's a pretty weak one and is not really defensible without any other "textual hints" for it. Yeah, Syrio might live. But that means he ran, and there's no further evidence of someone breaking out of Red Keep during the lockdown. Did he hole up in a cellar and wait for a week? Possible, but no evidence points to that either. Redcloaks aren't ordered to look for the man of his description, which would be likely if he did survive and run. After all he's an enemy of the state who attacked guards to interfere for the sake of the traitor's daughter.

[jjames36]

I like to clearly understand the limitations of people who argue with me.

Fair enough.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't post something like this, but given the direction this thread has headed, it seems germane. Please know I am not trying to attack you, Avenging Arya, but rather to highlight the launching point of some of the confusion so that we, collectively, can avoid future miscommunication. I apologize in advance if my words relay that intent poorly.

Moving on.

While we're on the topic, let's understand your weaknesses:

If you dare seriously assert that, I can see why you think I have no integrity: projection.

Here's your first weakness: when you can't attack the position as convincingly as you'd like, you attack the person. The general strategy with this debate tactic is to make the opponent so angry via these attacks that the person can't respond intelligently. Because they're responding emotionally rather than rationally, they are more likely to contradict themselves, and once contradictions happen, the debate's results are generally settled. (Now I have no idea if this is your strategy or not--just that it's the general strategy behind the tactic. Whatever your reasons for doing it, it has the same effect, discussed in the next sentence.)

Here's the thing: personal attacks make the attacker look ruthless. In high school debate they almost always result in a loss for the attacker, not a victory.

Once published, words mean what they mean objectively, not what you might have intended them to mean.

Empirically, this is true.

And your words clearly convey despondency and lack of future for Syrio Forel.

But here's where you've overextended your argument. OiL's words clearly said Syrio had no reason to live, that's all; they didn't say he was suicidal. The latter is an inference you drew from an implication you decided was present. You didn't ask or wait for clarification. You simply ran with the inference, repeating it ad nauseum, insisting Syrio being suicidal was OiL's theory and then pointing to this theory as evidence that OiL and others had contradicted themselves.

The rest of us waited for clarification before deciding what OiL meant, so when said clarification was made, we accepted that OiL meant to say Syrio didn't have other obligations that might render him less willing to enter combat to the death. Upon this clarification, we all accepted that OiL was not arguing that Syrio was suicidal, but rather that Syrio was willing to die in order to protect Arya. (For the record, I am neither supporting nor contradicting this argument.)

You, on the other hand, dismissed the clarification and said, "No, OiL. Your earlier words clearly say you think Syrio's suicidal. See. You've contradicted yourself." Never mind that the words, "Syrio is suicidal" never appeared in any of OiL's posts. Never mind, also, that OiL later clarified her or his position in depth. You decided what was true and stuck with it. And have continued to stick with it.

But therein is another of your weaknesses: listening.

You see, the art of debate is not in how well you speak, but in how well you listen. And this is the second starkly obvious example of you deciding what another poster thinks even though they've been pretty clear in defining their position. Just as I never said I thought Syrio was dead, OiL never said she or he thought Syrio was suicidal. You drew the inference and refused to back away from it once clarification was received. Therein is why I wondered earlier in this thread just how much you actually "listen" to anything your debate opponents say.

Had you been listening, you would have realized you were debating against a position you invented, not one someone actually employed. As the rest of us have.

j

P.S. Again, I realize this post comes dangerously close to being an attack in its own right. I'm not attempting to denigrate you in anyway, Avenging Arya, and I'm sorry if I inadvertently have. Once again, I'm merely trying to highlight a possible cause of confusion while hoping we, collectively, can now avoid these sorts of miscommunication in the future.

[Greywolf2375]

4)No matter the extra-textual opinions, it is clear that full armor is not an overwhelming advantage in Westeros. Bronn beat Vardis Egen, and Oberyn overcame Gregor Clegane. On the other hand, Jorah Mormont beat Khal Drogo's fierce bloodriders due to his armor; they were perhaps more skilled than he was in some sense. But one of the most telling fights is between Syrio and five Lannister guardsmen; they aren't untrained, and they went at him from three sides; he overcame all five of them in mere seconds, using only a stick, and with less armor than they had. They did not have the full armor of Trant, but they had numbers. Syrio didn't merely beat them, he destroyed them. So the text provides many reasons to think that the lightly armored Syrio has quite a reasonable chance of overcoming the fully armored Trant.

The gap in this thought though is that in both of the cases you stated where the armored opponent was defeated, there are differences significant enough to invalidate the heavily v. lightly armored. For Egan v. Bronn, the statue - even if Trant was knocked down, Forel does not have something to immobilize him as Egan was. And as others have said, if Trant was knocked down he has no opportunity to outrun Forel. Not too mention that a heavily armed man running makes significant noise.

For Oberyn v. Clegane, poison. And with that, Oberyn lost. Taking the textual hints, this could lead to Forel picking up a sword, hitting Trant (I think we can safely assume that while not his primary fighting style he would be capable), the sword gets stuck in the armor (as with Mormont) and Trant takes the opportunity to finish Forel while the weapon is stuck or takes his mailed fist and drives it into Forels head.

[dan_b]

there is, in fact, a great deal of text to support the various conjectures and subconjectures leading to the conclusion that "Syrio probably lives"...The textual evidence suggesting Syrio should have survived is stronger than the textual evidence that he should have died

If that were the case, we wouldn't be still arguing about it several years and nearly twenty pages worth of posts later.

Speculating is fun, but the only way we'll ever know the fate of Schrodinger's Water Dancer for sure is if GRRM writes it into a future book.

[Herta]

Fair enough.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't post something like this, but given the direction this thread has headed, it seems germane. Please know I am not trying to attack you, Avenging Arya, but rather to highlight the launching point of some of the confusion so that we, collectively, can avoid future miscommunication. I apologize in advance if my words relay that intent poorly.

Moving on.

While we're on the topic, let's understand your weaknesses:

Here's your first weakness: when you can't attack the position as convincingly as you'd like, you attack the person. The general strategy with this debate tactic is to make the opponent so angry via these attacks that the person can't respond intelligently. Because they're responding emotionally rather than rationally, they are more likely to contradict themselves, and once contradictions happen, the debate's results are generally settled. (Now I have no idea if this is your strategy or not--just that it's the general strategy behind the tactic. Whatever your reasons for doing it, it has the same effect, discussed in the next sentence.)

Here's the thing: personal attacks make the attacker look ruthless. In high school debate they almost always result in a loss for the attacker, not a victory.

Empirically, this is true.

But here's where you've overextended your argument. OiL's words clearly said Syrio had no reason to live, that's all; they didn't say he was suicidal. The latter is an inference you drew from an implication you decided was present. You didn't ask or wait for clarification. You simply ran with the inference, repeating it ad nauseum, insisting Syrio being suicidal was OiL's theory and then pointing to this theory as evidence that OiL and others had contradicted themselves.

The rest of us waited for clarification before deciding what OiL meant, so when said clarification was made, we accepted that OiL meant to say Syrio didn't have other obligations that might render him less willing to enter combat to the death. Upon this clarification, we all accepted that OiL was not arguing that Syrio was suicidal, but rather that Syrio was willing to die in order to protect Arya. (For the record, I am neither supporting nor contradicting this argument.)

You, on the other hand, dismissed the clarification and said, "No, OiL. Your earlier words clearly say you think Syrio's suicidal. See. You've contradicted yourself." Never mind that the words, "Syrio is suicidal" never appeared in any of OiL's posts. Never mind, also, that OiL later clarified her or his position in depth. You decided what was true and stuck with it. And have continued to stick with it.

But therein is another of your weaknesses: listening.

You see, the art of debate is not in how well you speak, but in how well you listen. And this is the second starkly obvious example of you deciding what another poster thinks even though they've been pretty clear in defining their position. Just as I never said I thought Syrio was dead, OiL never said she or he thought Syrio was suicidal. You drew the inference and refused to back away from it once clarification was received. Therein is why I wondered earlier in this thread just how much you actually "listen" to anything your debate opponents say.

Had you been listening, you would have realized you were debating against a position you invented, not one someone actually employed. As the rest of us have.

j

P.S. Again, I realize this post comes dangerously close to being an attack in its own right. I'm not attempting to denigrate you in anyway, Avenging Arya, and I'm sorry if I inadvertently have. Once again, I'm merely trying to highlight a possible cause of confusion while hoping we, collectively, can now avoid these sorts of miscommunication in the future.

The point, however, is that AvengingArya has developed a very thorough, reasoned argument about why Syrio "might" (and I emphasize the word "might" have survived. What's the problem with that? I for one, have read through the posts with a great deal of interest and to be honest, his point of view makes perfect sense to me - as a matter of fact, I'm kind of looking forward to Syrio's possible resurrection in ADWD. With respect to Arya, although I think she has been an amazing survivor, I can't help but feel she needs an adult intervention to get her out of the clutches of the cult. I know that some readers like the idea of her being groomed as an assasin, however, that's not a path I personally want to see her go down. All posters have made some really great comments, but I do truly appreciate Avenging Angels very well thought out discourse.