Syrio Forel

[cybroleach]

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

It's probably sanity.

[JJtheCrow]

Wow, this is like arguing religion. It can't be done!!! People state "facts" that technically aren't even facts. They are just assumptions. On top of that, some of you have even taken it upon yourselves to basically write your own scenarios. Please leave the writing to GRRM. GRRM wants me to believe Syrio is dead so until he writes him back into the story....HE IS DEAD TO ME. Syrio sacrificed himself to buy Arya time to escape. Just because it's obvious doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[cybroleach]

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.

The point is it's not a possibility unless you're going to re-wright AGOT. His theory hinges on 3 impossible points. His suicidal conjecture where he is incapable of undersanding something not sucide resulting in Syrio's death. For such a point to be valid it would mean he beleives Syrio would hand over Arya if he thought he couldn't beat Trant+5. For illistraitions point if Trant had shown up with 100 guards the chapter goes, 'Meryn, "Stand aside old man." Syrio steps aside, Arya is captured' otherwise he's suicidal. Now if you agree he'd try and stop a 100 men with no chance of success there is no reason to beleive he wouldn't do the same against 6. What he though his cances of victory are against these men means nothing since the answer is always the same (excluding Syrio standing aside because he's afraid to die). Which as anyone with logical thought sould be able to see OIL was stating implications that Syrio wasn't afraid to die.

However AAF needs this to be ture even though it slaps logical thought in the face, since as mention people who try and help other are not suicidal. for example any parent in the world will tell you they'd die to protect their child these people are not suicidal. AND this is the starting point which his theory is founded. So he invents it as OIL posion, "that Syrio was suicidal" so he can disprove it, thus rebuiding his foundation "that Syrio is not suicidal" a foundation which most ppl have easily pointed out has no bearing, since we can all agree it's true. However HIS real foundation is that "him not being suicidal means he was confidnet in victory against Meryn+5" however this is baseless conjecture since IT IS impossible to tell his thoughts on the matter. To top all this off it matters not what Syrio's thoughts were. He is not having a psychic visions where he beats these men he has a few minuests to size the situation which does not play into wheither he lives or dies it doesn't change what actually happens.

That's one.

Syrio's confidence rising to the point where he is assured of victory against Meryn, yet still afaid he may loose thuse sending Arya away. These contradicting thoughts just do not run threw peoples heads that fast. And not only is Syrio haveing this flip-flop thought BUT Meryn Trant as well. Meryn goes from being so over confident that he falls offbalance trying to kill Syrio to oh shit this guys gonna kill me I need to run away before he gets a sword before he even lands a blow. His evidence for this is that IN that exact moment when Arya turns Meryn who did not think highly of what Syrio DID to his men suddenly realises how impressive that was and turns coward. To make all this fit he creates an image of Trant that has no evidence in the books, even evidence to the contray. In any case no real person would have this sort of thought process midfight.

That's two.

Syrio sacrifing his sword to unbalance Trant. It clearly does not happen in AGOT. I'm not sure if he has not read the chaper in awihle or his reading comprehension is that bad. However it's been pointed out to the Xth that Syrio is not dictating this action he is being attacked, and IN BOOK Meryn cuts his stick inhalf WITHOUT falling over. Thus his supposed sacrifice is akin to trowing his stick on the ground before he swong at Trant, since he's in the same position of needing to UNBALANCE Trant. This is where we're left Syrio with 1/2 stick vs a fully balanced Trant with sword & armour.

That's all three. So yes there are several things you could invent to have Syrio live for example ROI's theory of Syrio=Jaqen or Syrio=Meryn Trant or Syrio uses badass ninja to cartweel away and karate chop Meryn unconsious. Bending logic and rewrighting a scene IS not a possible theory let alone the most reasonable outcome.

[jjames36]

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?

There's nothing wrong with it. The scenario Avenging Arya illustrates is possible. So are the ones Rakka sets forth. And any number of possible alternatives we have or have not read in this thread.

All I've ever suggested is that Avenging Arya's scenario needn't be the truth. It might be accurate. It might not be. Acting as though it is fact, which at times has happened here, bothers me. Acting as though the fight might have gone this way is fine, if probably pointless until or unless Martin actually provides the answer.

That's all three. So yes there are several things you could invent to have Syrio live for example ROI's theory of Syrio=Jaqen or Syrio=Meryn Trant or Syrio uses badass ninja to cartweel away and karate chop Meryn unconsious. Bending logic and rewrighting a scene IS not a possible theory let alone the most reasonable outcome.

You raise some interesting points in this post, Cybroleach, as to why Avenging Arya's theory is flawed. That said, I think you go too far with the above quote. There is no textual reason to conclude that the theory isn't possible. As I started explaining some pages back, I personally think it's pretty unlikely--at least that it played out the way Avenging Arya suggests--but there's no textual evidence to prove that it didn't go that way. Just as, in my opinion, there's no textual evidence proving, or even suggesting, that it did.

It is, however, possible that Syrio unbalanced Trant, whether by sacrificing his sword or not. It is also possible that upon being unbalanced, Trant fled. We can debate on how likely these conclusions are, but saying there is any certainty either way is unfair.

This is where we're left Syrio with 1/2 stick vs a fully balanced Trant with sword & armour.

Take, for example, this point.

The text Smiling Knight (I believe) quoted earlier in this thread does not prove that Trant is fully balanced. It only proves that Trant splinters Syrio's sword right before Arya runs. Neither Arya nor the narrator give an observation as to Trant's balance. We have zero proof that Trant is balanced. We have zero proof that he is unbalanced. Either is possible. One may or may not be more likely.

j

[Rakka]

I wasn't creating any scenarios, I was just addressing the reality of a light, breakable weapon vs. heavy, sharp one*, and the possible ways the fight could possibly go that lead to Syrio's victory and finding them unrealistic given the circumstances and personalities, differences in weapons and practice in them, armour and mobility of each. I just see no way for Syrio to get advantage and NOT press it to gain further advantage. That's what you do when you try to win someone.

Also, nicely pointed out by cybroleach that according to AAF, Syrio is so certain of his victory against Trant but still tells Arya to run. Interesting how character's words and actions speak less clearly than "textual hints".

* Nasty, brutish and short. Syrio was damn amazing to keep ahead as long as he did.

[jjames36]

I wasn't creating any scenarios, I was just addressing the reality of a light, breakable weapon vs. heavy, sharp one*, and the possible ways the fight could possibly go that lead to Syrio's victory

I realize that, but in so doing you still illustrated a number of possible ways the fight might have gone given the circumstances. I didn't intend to imply that I thought you were accepting one of those alternatives as being likely.

j

[cybroleach]

The text Smiling Knight (I believe) quoted earlier in this thread does not prove that Trant is fully balanced. It only proves that Trant splinters Syrio's sword right before Arya runs. Neither Arya nor the narrator give an observation as to Trant's balance. We have zero proof that Trant is balanced. We have zero proof that he is unbalanced. Either is possible. One may or may not be more likely.

No it didn't happen because Arya didn't see it. She watching this battle the whole time she sees Meryn cut threw his stick. IF Meryn were stumbling here she would see it and probably keep watching the fact that things now look hopeless is what predicates her flight. You're adding things that are NOT their because there not ruled out. I could make a claim Howland Reed showed up while they were fighting injected Meryn with a sleeping drug that kicked in just after Arya run. She just didn't an observation on Howland doing all that. SO in the relm of anything is possible that is possible. But putting the constraints of reading and writing it can't. THIS is rewriting the book.

For chronology's sake it goes Meryn cuts stick, Arya watches, Arya thinks, comes to the conclusion Syrio's doomed, turns and runs. All this happens without Meryn being noticable unbalanced. AND lets not forget this is a scene Arya is "seeing with her eyes."

[jjames36]

For chronology's sake it goes Meryn cuts stick, Arya watches, Arya thinks, comes to the conclusion Syrio's doomed, turns and runs. All this happens without Meryn being noticable unbalanced. AND lets not forget this is a scene Arya is "seeing with her eyes."

First, I agree with you. I just think we need to be fair to Avenging Arya and not dismiss his or her argument as impossible.

With that in mind, let me play devil's advocate a moment.

Arya is 'seeing with her eyes,' yes, but she's also a 9 or 10 year old girl who is only moderately trained in swordplay and who has witnessed very few actual combats. Those she has witnessed are at tournaments and/or in the training yard where the stakes are lower, the intensity is reduced and the combatants have less to fight for. It is possible that Trant was in process of falling off balance, that Syrio's next move would finish the process, and that Arya is simply not trained or experienced enough to recognize this subtle fact. Is this likely? I doubt it. Is it even probable? No, not in my opinion. But is it possible? Yes.

If you don't like that possible explanation for the absence of observational evidence, let's look at a second one. When emotional, our observational skills are severely limited, especially when we're children. There is no doubt Arya was emotional in that scene. Her emotion might well have limited her ability to see beyond the initial impression that Syrio is doomed. It's not like she thinks for long, after all. Just long enough to panic and flee. Maybe Trant was beginning to stumble, but Arya was so focused on Syrio's sword being sheared that she didn't notice. This is not an impossible contingency. After all, I'd bet we all have plenty of examples in our lives where we misunderstood something when we were stressed, worried or angry. Why should we expect a pre-adolescent child to avoid the very pitfalls of high emotion that adults have trouble avoiding?

Both of these paragraphs provide alternative reasons for Arya not observing that Trant is off balance. Both are possible. Perhaps neither is likely.

No it didn't happen because Arya didn't see it.

Ah. See here you're doing exactly the same thing I did, except you're saying it only applies to one side. I said Trant's balance can't be ruled on one way or the other, because the scene doesn't provide evidence. You come back and say, he couldn't have been off balance, because the scene doesn't say he was.

Using a negative proof, as Artanaro said several years back at the beginning of this thread, almost always allows the other side to use the same negative proof. That is, I can just as easily say Trant wasn't properly balanced because Arya doesn't observe that he was. Let us not forget that this is a scene in which she is 'seeing with her eyes.'

I could make a claim Howland Reed showed up while they were fighting injected Meryn with a sleeping drug that kicked in just after Arya run. She just didn't an observation on Howland doing all that. SO in the relm of anything is possible that is possible.

You're right, you could. While Avenging Arya would doubtlessly contend that her or his theory is well grounded in evidence and this Howland Reed nonsense is an overt red herring, I wouldn't. I think your Howland Reed claim has just about as much evidence supporting it as Avenging Arya's claim of Trant being off balance and fleeing. But empirically, both are possible. That's all I'm saying.

For the record, I contend that neither is likely.

j

[corbon]

Putting aside some of the more crazy Syrio=Jaqen=Tyrion=Arya (yes, I went overboard there, sorry :devil: ) theories, which seem to have been more or less disproved at at least 99%, it seems likely that most of the arguing on this thread is simply a disconnect of probabilities.

One side looks at the evidence available (and what they judge would be GRRM quality storytelling) and assesses the probability of Syrio being alive and returning to the storyline (it is after all pretty much irrelevant if he lives and does not return to the storyline) as being , say, 5-10%.

Not 0%, but small enough to generally dismiss it as reasonable.

Therefore "Syrio is dead".

Not quite the same as "Syrio couldn't possibly be alive", which I couldn't find anyone say during a cursory check of this thread.

They other side looks at the same evidence available (and also what they judge would be GRRM quality storytelling) and assess the probabilty of Syrio being alive and returning to the storyline as being, say 50-70% (I'm guessing here, since I am in the 5-10% crowd, maybe edging as high as 15%).

Not 100%, but enough to be more than just 'possible'.

Therefore "Syrio is alive!".

Not quite the same as Syrio can't be dead" which I equally didn't find anyone saying during a cursory check.

Both sides sound like they are being conclusive, or 100%, when I don't think either are.

In summary, AFAICT, almost no one has really been backing anything as conclusively certain.

[corbon]

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.

You could stand by that. First problem is, that wasn't your contention - your contention was 'suicidal'.

The second problem is that if you actually read the passage from which the text is quoted as a whole, instead of isolated parts of it, even what you attempt to stand by now is rather contrary to the actual thrust of the passage, which is entirely about living up to his culture and his life's ideals. Quite the opposite of 'tired of life' and 'ready to lay it down'.

Further, since the original (well, in this thread) post with those lines (quoted from another thread) started (in the quoted part) by explicitly stating that the idea was not suicidalness, you will have to forgive those of us who 'judge' that someone who claims that this passage does argue for suicidal intent, or even 'tired of life', isn't particularly adept at understanding subtleties of language. Sorry, nothing personal, but it really is that simple. This is a gross mis-read of the passage, and if you stand by that then you blow your own credibility out of the water - IMO. :(

Why? Are they (Water Dancers, incl Syrio) suicidal? No, they have merely ...

FWIW, I think Syrio could be alive - possibly as much as 40% if he doesn't reappear in the plot. But the chance of him being alive and reappearing in the plot in my assessment is low, around 10-15% at best.

So I'm not ruling out the Syrio is alive theories, just weighing the evidence and finding it, IMSubjectiveO, rather unlikely.

[AvengingAryaFan]

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.

You're saying "Syrio has no reason to live" is significantly different from "Syrio is suicidal"?

They seem essentially synonymous to me. Especially when one adds, as OiL did, "Why wouldn't he embrace the chance to go out in a blaze of glory?" The difference between "has no reason to live" plus "embraces the chance to go out in a blaze of glory", on the one hand, and "is heroically suicidal" is vanishingly small - a distinction without a difference. It hardly seems worthy of the indignation that calling it "suicidal" has generated.

But let's move on, and I'll work with the more awkward summary "Syrio has no reason to live."

There is no textual support whatsoever for the contention that Syrio has no reason to live. This conclusion is supported by the detailed rebuttal I set forth upthread (post 200, bottom of p.10) for almost every premise in OiL's "Syrio has no reason to live" presentation. The few premises I did not rebut, such as "some bravos kill each other for silly reasons", can in no way support the contention by themselves.

You might fairly wonder why I am so hostile to the idea that Syrio has no reason to live; here are three reasons:

First, suggesting that Syrio had no reason to live is a terrible insult to him, as it would be to any person who risked their life serving a higher duty. To slightly paraphrase OiL:

One hopes that no family members of military servicemen, police officers, or firefighters who died while performing their duties doesn't read this thread and discover, by shocking dichotomy, that they [simply had no reason to live]

must have been "suicidal"

. It's not inconceivable that the notion might prove offensive.

It isn't very impressive to risk your life when you have no reason to live, is it? The idea that Syrio had no reason to live is pernicious and offensive.

Second, it renders impossible any rational analysis of Syrio's behavior. If he had no reason to live, he would naturally be willing to take nearly impossible risks for little perceived gain. He would not be a rational actor; he would have nothing to lose. Thus, it has important ramifications for the discussion of Syrio's behavior. Granted, if it were a fair reading of the text that would not be a problem, just a fact.

But third, the contention is entirely unwarranted. As such, the distortion it imposes on any rational analysis of Syrio's behavior is unfair. Of course I object - it unfairly makes the "Syrio is dead" argument seem far more reasonable.

That Syrio is courageous I have no doubt; that he is willing to take risks is beyond question. But a reasonable consideration of his behavior is only possible if he is a rational actor who wants to live as much as the next person.

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.

That is not entirely unfair. I'll go further: I know fully well that OiL expressly denied that Syrio (or bravos generally) was suicidal. I have insisted that her seductive, well-written presentation conveys that Syrio is suicidal. My insistence is an express effort to show that the difference between what she says and "suicidal" is negligible. Had I listened better, perhaps I'd have chosen a more technically defensible position - have recharacterized her argument as conveying that Syrio has no reason to live. That concept is equally pernicious, unwarranted, and unfairly prejudicial of the overarching argument about Syrio's survival, but it is not "suicidal" per se.

I chose to be provocative by calling it "suicidal". Technically, it is not that. Practically, it is a distinction without a difference - it has the same effect as if he was suicidal, demeaning his heroism and making him non-rational. But by provocatively being technically inaccurate I opened myself up to the criticism you have set forth. You have taught me something.

Practically, the conjecture that Syrio had no reason to live is textually unsupported and indeed contrary to a reasonable interpretation of the text, and it unfairly prejudices the discussion at hand by making Syrio a man with nothing to lose, thus rendering any risk he takes meaningless and rational analysis of his behavior impossible. I remain adamantly opposed to it.

But the well has been poisoned, in no small part by my own actions.

It's a pity, because no matter my errors, a careful analysis of the situation provides terrific support for Syrio's survival, a conclusion that is interesting in part because it is contrary to majority opinion. Contrary to assertions, all the relevant issues have NOT been explored.

[AvengingAryaFan]

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.

With all due respect, those differences do not invalidate the heavily armored vs. lightly armored. They render it a less than identical situation. In crucial outline, the more lightly armored fighter sometimes - or even relatively often - overcomes the more heavily armored.

There are inevitably many differences between fights, and they cannot all be considered at once. But clearly, light armoring does not inevitably lose to heavy armoring. What can fairly be taken from the textual examples is that armor has definite advantages (Jorah vs. bloodriders), but also some disadvantages (slowing and wearing out Vardis Egen and Gregor).

I am certainly not claiming that armor is a disadvantage, overall. I'm saying that in ASOIAF it is clearly neither an unblemished advantage nor an insuperable advantage.

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.

True.

And Oberyn had a long weapon that made him somewhat of a threat even to Gregor, unlike Forel to Trant. Yet it was Oberyn's superior mobility that enabled him to mostly avoid being hit by Gregor's sword. If things progressed as they started, even poison wasn't essential: Oberyn was drawing blood, and Gregor was not. It would have taken longer, and there would have been more opportunity for Gregor to land a killing blow, but the "dance around and wear them down" approach might have won even without poison (just as Bronn said it might). I hope you'll permit me to ignore Oberyn's last minute foolishness in considering what the fight teaches about the relative merits of armor vs. not. That was an issue of stupidity vs. not - stupidity loses. In any event I agree this fight is quite different from Syrio vs. Trant.

As for Forel: yes, the fight could have turned out differently; I don't deny a significant chance that Forel could have been killed. I mean, unlike both Bronn and Oberyn, Forel never (in our sight) had a weapon that could hurt Trant. Yet if he'd wanted a sword, they were available. Partly because he opted not to get a real sword, I think Forel believed it was unlikely that Trant would seriously hurt him. I think the text hints at that conclusion:

Why didn't Forel immediately - or at least after his jabs failed - run for a real sword? Why did he continue to actively engage Trant with his stick - why did he stay within range of Trant's sword? Such engagement was unnecessary, was not what Oberyn mostly did with Gregor, and Bronn advised against it. I think it suggests two things: one, that Forel was trying to do what he did with the guardsmen - knocking them off balance, then down, then dealing with them on better terms (it suggests this partly because Forel had demonstrated a proclivity for that technique, and partly because - well, what else could he do with a fully armored knight?). Second, I think it suggests that Forel wasn't nearly as afraid of Trant as most posters think he should have been. In particular, I think Forel was confident he could avoid being hit by Trant's sword. There's really pretty compelling reason to believe that: after all, Forel had just avoided being hit by any of five swords concurrently attacking him. Even if we assume Trant is a superior fighter than any of the guardsmen (a somewhat dubious assumption), avoiding one sword would seem substantially easier than avoiding multiple swords concurrently, which we already saw Forel do.

There are a lot of hints about the Forel/Trant fight, many of them shown in the preceding fight with the guardsmen. I don't think the fight has ever been considered closely enough in view of all those hints. But remember, I'm not saying that any number of hints equals certainty. Moreover, I expect I'm missing some hints; I welcome other posters bringing up the hints I do, or seem to, overlook, especially when they do it without attacking me personally.

[AvengingAryaFan]

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.

Your last sentence is true, but the former - not so much.

In this thread I've identified previously unconsidered evidence - four things in total (Syrio's unexpected behavior, the necessity of understanding such unexpected behavior, Syrio's specific techniques in overcoming the guardsmen (techniques that would work against Trant); and now, the fact that Syrio has thus far entirely avoided being hit by a sword, either when five guardsmen were after him concurrently, or when Trant was slashing away.

This evidence hasn't been fully considered. Some old posters basically refuse to consider it, simply saying everything has already been said. Moreover, arguments over important digressions like whether Syrio had any reason to live have distracted the discussion. In fact, most board discussions tend to AVOID considering the actual evidence, as posters toss around personal attacks and conclusory (evidence-free) conclusions. Finally - what you said - we can't know for sure in any event, because Martin hasn't written it and refuses to answer the question.

[AvengingAryaFan]

The point is it's not a possibility unless you're going to re-wright AGOT. His theory hinges on 3 impossible points. His suicidal conjecture where he is incapable of undersanding something not sucide resulting in Syrio's death. For such a point to be valid it would mean he beleives Syrio would hand over Arya if he thought he couldn't beat Trant+5. For illistraitions point if Trant had shown up with 100 guards the chapter goes, 'Meryn, "Stand aside old man." Syrio steps aside, Arya is captured' otherwise he's suicidal.

Well stated - really. But, of course, I don't exactly agree.

It's true that I believe Syrio would not sacrifice his life for the marginal benefit he can - and does - provide to Arya. But that does NOT mean he would sacrifice her - just that he would not fight to the death if it was hopeless and if he could avoid it. So: If the 100 guards are too much, but Syrio still wants Arya to get away, he does something else: perhaps he doesn't say "I won't run"; perhaps he stalls for a minute or so, staying out of everybody's reach while Arya escapes, and then surrenders himself, or escapes out a door, or ... he'd find a way. All he CAN give Arya, all he DOES give Arya, is a bit of a lead over people pursuing her. And the worst that happens if he fails is that she's captured - she's not a target for murder. Captured has its own opportunities - where there's life, there's hope - and escaping, as we've seen, wasn't a perfect blessing for Arya. So the gain is ... something, but not life vs. death; therefore, Syrio's actions would match the risk he perceived. IF he's a rational actor who, like most people, wants to live but also wants to do the right thing. It doesn't have to be either/or; there are always alternatives. But if he thinks he can take these fool Westerosi guardsmen and Trant, then his decision to engage them makes perfect sense. Swordfighting is always a risk, but Syrio knows what he's capable of better than anybody else.

However AAF needs this to be ture even though it slaps logical thought in the face, since as mention people who try and help other are not suicidal. for example any parent in the world will tell you they'd die to protect their child these people are not suicidal. AND this is the starting point which his theory is founded. So he invents it as OIL posion, "that Syrio was suicidal" so he can disprove it, thus rebuiding his foundation "that Syrio is not suicidal" a foundation which most ppl have easily pointed out has no bearing, since we can all agree it's true. However HIS real foundation is that "him not being suicidal means he was confidnet in victory against Meryn+5" however this is baseless conjecture since IT IS impossible to tell his thoughts on the matter. To top all this off it matters not what Syrio's thoughts were. He is not having a psychic visions where he beats these men he has a few minuests to size the situation which does not play into wheither he lives or dies it doesn't change what actually happens.

You are very mistaken to imagine that I deny people will risk their lives for others, for duty, for pride.

You are slightly mistaken, but in two different ways, when you say that "his not being suicidal means he was confident of victory vs. Trant+5".

The first way is this: I do not say "it means", but "it suggests". It is a piece of evidence, and thus helps lead to a conclusion - it doesn't dictate it. The second way is this: I do not need Syrio to be "confident" of victory over Trant+5, but merely to believe there is a reasonable chance of victory. It's a big difference, allowing Syrio to indeed risk his life for his principles, and for whatever benefit he can confer on Arya. And it leads to a conclusion I'm happy with: if he has a reasonable chance to beat Trant+5, then he has a very good chance of beating Trant alone. Which is the situation we are finally left with.

Syrio's confidence rising to the point where he is assured of victory against Meryn, yet still afaid he may loose thuse sending Arya away. These contradicting thoughts just do not run threw peoples heads that fast. And not only is Syrio haveing this flip-flop thought BUT Meryn Trant as well. Meryn goes from being so over confident that he falls offbalance trying to kill Syrio to oh shit this guys gonna kill me I need to run away before he gets a sword before he even lands a blow. His evidence for this is that IN that exact moment when Arya turns Meryn who did not think highly of what Syrio DID to his men suddenly realises how impressive that was and turns coward. To make all this fit he creates an image of Trant that has no evidence in the books, even evidence to the contray. In any case no real person would have this sort of thought process midfight.

Wow! You HAVE been reading - I'm not mocking, I'm surprised; I thought my words fell on deaf ears. Again, pretty well put! But, of course, I don't quite agree:

About sending Arya away: some others have said, and I did long ago, that it's one thing to be confident of a fight you can give your full attention to, and another entirely to have the same fight with a child you care about present as a possible target of attack or of accidental harm.

About Trant's flipflop, which I really like: Trant's "Bloody oafs" curse implies he was initially confident, believing the guardsmen were simply incompetent. My theory is that Trant's confidence is misplaced, while Syrio's confidence is warranted. All that is required is an interpretation that Syrio's victory over the +5 was not luck (as Trant might think when a DANCING instructor kills five guardsmen), but skill. That it was skill is a reasonable conclusion in view of Forel's "excellent reputation" and former First Sword position, plus the speed, versatility and resourcefulness he demonstrated against the +5. It seems stupid for Trant to have assumed the guards were incompetent rather than concluding Syrio was phenomenal, but the text seems pretty suggestive in that regard.

Hints of Trant's cowardice, offhand: fully armored Trant standing down in front of his king and court when challenged by a partly disarmored Barristan Selmy, even though he was one of several Kingsguards that could have opposed Selmy; and Trant's lack of apparent reluctance about beating the helpless Sansa - he either hates cute little girls, or he's afraid to even seem to stand up to Joff. But cowardice isn't even essential to my argument. Once Arya was gone, what reason did Trant have to take ANY risk fighting Syrio? He wasn't ordered to kill Syrio, but to capture Arya. I don't suppose he cares that much to avenge the guardsmen, given that he (apparently) didn't even mention their deaths to Cersei.

About Trant changing his mind during the fight: I submit that people think very fast when their life is on the line, and people run from fights they've engaged in all the time. Plus, how hard is it to realize the game's over when your goal (Arya) is gone?

Syrio sacrifing his sword to unbalance Trant. It clearly does not happen in AGOT. I'm not sure if he has not read the chaper in awihle or his reading comprehension is that bad. However it's been pointed out to the Xth that Syrio is not dictating this action he is being attacked, and IN BOOK Meryn cuts his stick inhalf WITHOUT falling over. Thus his supposed sacrifice is akin to trowing his stick on the ground before he swong at Trant, since he's in the same position of needing to UNBALANCE Trant. This is where we're left Syrio with 1/2 stick vs a fully balanced Trant with sword & armour.

Meh, I could do without the ad hominems (even if I've been guilty).

I don't think we know that "stick sacrifice" does NOT happen in AGOT; we see the stick sheared, and it could have been a sacrifice that we saw. But we certainly do not know that Syrio sacrificed his stick - I cheerfully acknowledge this is conjecture. But there is some basis: first, Syrio demonstrated great adaptability, using a guardsman's helmet as a shield to catch a knife thrust while shattering the man's kneecap. Second, there is certainly basis for his intentionally trying to offbalance the fighters; it's only fair to assume he was fighting purposefull, not at random, and his foot pushing one over was pretty clearly intentional. Third, we have the fact that Syrio has tested and found the stick useless offensively against Trant; it retains some value, no doubt, but not much, so giving it up isn't a large sacrifice in any event.

But the "stick sacrifice" is merely a conjecture which, if correct, might have ended the fight almost immediately after Arya left. It's only one of many ways Syrio could have survived. All Syrio probably needed to do was to convince Trant that he was dangerous, because, Arya being gone, Trant had no reason to continue the engagement. Getting knocked down might have convinced him, but Syrio could also have simply picked up a sword while continuing to evade Trant's sword blows (a skill he has demonstrated somewhat convincingly). In that case, the risk a real blade would represent in the hands of a man who just killed five guardsmen with a stick might well have been sufficient to cause Trant to disengage from a pointless fight.

Thanks for the three specific criticisms. Agree with me or not, I like addressing specific contentions.

Notice that my theory (which yes, shifts slightly from time to time) has Trant probably disengaging from Syrio once Arya's gone (another reason to send Arya away, BTW), leaving Syrio free to walk away. I don't dispute that Syrio could have been killed, even though it seems odd that Trant (apparently) didn't mention killing a man who slaughtered five Lannister guardsmen to Queen Cersei when explaining his failure to capture Arya. And even though the (apparent) failure to mention the guardsmen's deaths seems to hint at embarrassment and coverup. And I don't dispute Syrio's courage; I just think that it was more confidence than self-sacrifice that caused him to take on Trant+5.

I mean, even if Syrio was confident he could beat Trant+5, that doesn't mean he wouldn't take a huge risk to his life for the right cause. I just don't see the difference - between fighting to the death vs. dancing around and delaying Trant to let Arya escape - as significant enough to justify Syrio sacrificing his life against hopeless odds. Never mind letting them capture Arya; the difference between hunted renegade and high-born captive might not have warranted sacrificing himself, but even if he thought it was that important, and he thought Trant posed a terrible danger, there were other ways he could have achieved Arya's escape with far less risk to his life. He could have accomplished exactly what he did without dying - as a man who wants to live, why would he allow himself to die?

That's all three. So yes there are several things you could invent to have Syrio live for example ROI's theory of Syrio=Jaqen or Syrio=Meryn Trant or Syrio uses badass ninja to cartweel away and karate chop Meryn unconsious. Bending logic and rewrighting a scene IS not a possible theory let alone the most reasonable outcome.

I try to invent as little as possible, and I especially try to keep reworking my theories - even giving some up, as I have with Syrio=Jaqen - to make them consistent with as much textual evidence as possible. I regret you don't agree with me, but I truly appreciate your very specific criticisms.

[AvengingAryaFan]

Not quite the same as Syrio can't be dead" which I equally didn't find anyone saying during a cursory check.

Both sides sound like they are being conclusive, or 100%, when I don't think either are.

In summary, AFAICT, almost no one has really been backing anything as conclusively certain.

Thank you. I think I always refer to my theory as "Syrio is probably alive", and I agree that my sense is he's 60-70% likely alive.

However, a lot of people really are very adamant that there's practically no chance Syrio survived. Consider EB; it's as likely as pigs flying - not impossible in a fantasy, but extremely unlikely.

In fairness, iheartseverus at least once stated something like "Syrio lives", and the OP was nearly absolute IIRC, so it's not all one way, but there is a very significant difference in relative absolutism between the camps. Even 5-15% (which is unusually generous for a Syrio skeptic) is far closer to the nearest absolute position, 0%, than 60-70% (which is the highest I've seen) is to its nearest absolute position, 100% (i.e., we grant the other side a much greater chance of being right than they grant us: 30-40% >> 5-15%).

Having said that, the more we discuss this the more bits of textual evidence I find that align better with Syrio being alive. Consequently, I am slowly drifting to a more absolute position myself. Next thing you know, I'll be saying I believe there's an 85-95% chance Syrio survived Trant. But not quite yet.

[jjames36]

You're saying "Syrio has no reason to live" is significantly different from "Syrio is suicidal"?

They seem essentially synonymous to me.

Of course that's what I'm saying. You argued that words have an objective meaning they carry when published. As a professional linguist this is an argument I could disagree with if I cared enough (for the record, I don't. It is actually something linguists' debate at great length). Eh. That was a tangent.

If we are to accept your argument that words carry an objective meaning, then the necessary condition is that different words carry different meanings. The words 'Syrio has no reason to live' and 'Syrio is suicidal' are different. Ergo, the meaning those words objectively carry are different.

Now, in normal circumstances I agree that the statement 'Syrio has no reason to live' could well be an implication that he is suicidal. This circumstance, however, is different. As Corbon said, the rest of OiL's post made it clear that he or she was arguing that Syrio is willing to die, as is consistent with his culture and past. (Again, let me be clear, I am neither supporting nor contradicting OiL's position.) Contextually speaking, the words 'Syrio has no reason to live' mean something very different from 'Syrio is suicidal.'

There is no textual support whatsoever for the contention that Syrio has no reason to live.

On this, Avenging Arya, we are in complete agreement. That is why I've not supported the position.

You might wonder why I haven't argued against it. In short, there's also no textual support to prove that he did have reason to live. And I prefer to participate in discussions centered on textual evidence.

That is not entirely unfair. I'll go further: I know fully well that OiL expressly denied that Syrio (or bravos generally) was suicidal. I have insisted that her seductive, well-written presentation conveys that Syrio is suicidal.

Fair enough. If that is the argument, it's potentially a fair one. Like I said, the words themselves might lead to such a conclusion when taken out of context. But then, ideally, that's how the argument should have been phrased, instead of assigning the position to OiL.

But you've already acknowledged that fact, so I don't know why I bothered writing the above paragraph. :-)

It's a pity, because no matter my errors, a careful analysis of the situation provides terrific support for Syrio's survival, a conclusion that is interesting in part because it is contrary to majority opinion. Contrary to assertions, all the relevant issues have NOT been explored.

Agreed that all relevant issues have not been explored. Also agreed that there is a fair amount of reasonable conjecture to support the thesis that Syrio is alive. I wouldn't go so far as saying it's 'terrific support', mind you, but there is enough support as to make conclusive statements that he died unprovable.

I've said before, and I'll say again, that I think it very unlikely Syrio will ever appear in this series again, though I can't know that for certain, of course. Whether he appears again or not, however, does not provide proof that he's alive or dead. I'm guessing we'll never receive that proof.

j

[dan_b]

Your last sentence is true, but the former - not so much.

In this thread I've identified previously unconsidered evidence - four things in total (Syrio's unexpected behavior, the necessity of understanding such unexpected behavior, Syrio's specific techniques in overcoming the guardsmen (techniques that would work against Trant); and now, the fact that Syrio has thus far entirely avoided being hit by a sword, either when five guardsmen were after him concurrently, or when Trant was slashing away.

This evidence hasn't been fully considered. Some old posters basically refuse to consider it, simply saying everything has already been said. Moreover, arguments over important digressions like whether Syrio had any reason to live have distracted the discussion. In fact, most board discussions tend to AVOID considering the actual evidence, as posters toss around personal attacks and conclusory (evidence-free) conclusions. Finally - what you said - we can't know for sure in any event, because Martin hasn't written it and refuses to answer the question.

I'm still confused with this whole 'evidence-based approach' to determining what happened to Syrio. You aren't the only person who is doing it so I'm not singling you out in particular. I've seen it from a few posters.

To me, none of this discussion about swords and armored vs. unarmored, the layout of the black cells, the psychology of Syrio and his culture is relevant because of the rules of evidence do not apply.

Why, you ask?

BECAUSE SYRIO FOREL IS NOT A REAL PERSON. Nor is Meryn Trant,the guardsmen, Arya Stark, The Black Cells or anything else. They do not have ANY properties whatsoever except the ones GRRM needs to tell the story and make it plausible. He can use it as evidence (or as a red herring) in hindsight, but it doesn't tell you anything.

There's no 'probabilities' involved. If Syrio shows up dead, he's dead. If he shows up alive, he's alive. And if he never shows up again he's not anything.

Personally, I found Syrio's last scene confusing. The last bit gave me the impression we were supposed to believe Syrio was going to die heroically, but he was so bad-ass at the beginning, I found it hard to believe Trant could take him. I don't know if GRRM made it intentionally ambiguous or not.

I offered an explanation of my own a few pages back how Syrio could have survived. I like it because it's simple, relatively plausible, and doesnt' contradict anything we've seen or require massive ret-conning/explanation on the writer's part. But it's not really any better than the Syrio = Jaqen argument (which I'd never thought of). It doesn't make a lot of sense, but at least it gives Syrio a REASON to be re-introduced in the story.

[Rydis]

You know..I always wonder if authors put as much thought into these kinds of things as its audience analysis them.

Also, may have been answered, but alot of reading in this thread. For the Syrio = Faceless man believers..I have a question.

Why? For this theory to be true, the faceless men would have to have some sort of stake in arya even before Ned dies. Why would this be? If there is no stake, then they have another mission which we are unaware of, however would be unrelated to Ayra. For those wanting Syrio to be a faceless man and come out as a teacher for arya..than why would he of left after Harrenhal just to arrive in Braavos to acomplish the same task? It really doesn't have a logical flow to it. For everything to play out as it did, in their favor as they believed, they would have to have another ability not yet shown. To see the future..and pretty far ahead I should say.

[AvengingAryaFan]

You could stand by that. First problem is, that wasn't your contention - your contention was 'suicidal'.

The second problem is that if you actually read the passage from which the text is quoted as a whole, instead of isolated parts of it, even what you attempt to stand by now is rather contrary to the actual thrust of the passage, which is entirely about living up to his culture and his life's ideals. Quite the opposite of 'tired of life' and 'ready to lay it down'.

Further, since the original (well, in this thread) post with those lines (quoted from another thread) started (in the quoted part) by explicitly stating that the idea was not suicidalness, you will have to forgive those of us who 'judge' that someone who claims that this passage does argue for suicidal intent, or even 'tired of life', isn't particularly adept at understanding subtleties of language. Sorry, nothing personal, but it really is that simple. This is a gross mis-read of the passage, and if you stand by that then you blow your own credibility out of the water - IMO. :(

FWIW, I think Syrio could be alive - possibly as much as 40% if he doesn't reappear in the plot. But the chance of him being alive and reappearing in the plot in my assessment is low, around 10-15% at best.

So I'm not ruling out the Syrio is alive theories, just weighing the evidence and finding it, IMSubjectiveO, rather unlikely.

Deserves a reply, but all I can say is I've agreed to withdraw "suicidal" as stretched for provocation, to be replaced by "has no reason to live", as submitted by jjames. Unfortunately it is, as I said, a distinction without a difference. It imagines a Syrio who is not a rational actor, i.e. one who balances his desire to live against his sense of duty, pride and obligation, but a person who might willy nilly embrace a glorious death because they have nothing to lose.

It's true that OiL expressly disclaimed that they, the bravos, are "suicidal." But if her caveat excludes only the narrowest technical sense of suicidal, then it seems entirely fair to underscore the emptiness of the caveat by submitting that it is tantamount to suicidal. It is NOT a gross misreading of the passage, it is a point that I acknowledge slightly overstating to be provocative. Be fair: can you say that "is suicidal" is a gross misrepresentation of "has no reason to live and would naturally embrace a glorious death"?

As for reading the presentation as a whole: yes, I know that OiL is suggesting it's a kind of heroism. I don't object to that in principle; it is, as I've said, an argument I'm happy to have. However, her powerful implication that Syrio has no reason to live makes his death as a kind of heroism seem much more likely than it actually is. It does that, paradoxically, by devaluing the heroism - for what is the big deal if Syrio gives up his life for Arya when he has no reason to live anyway? But by making it easier to imagine as an act of heroism (however devalued), it makes the idea that he happily entered a contest he couldn't hope to survive seem much more likely. Which would be fine, if there was any basis for OiL's contention that (as jjames said) "Syrio has no reason to live".

But regardless of whether OiL's contention is that Syrio is "suicidal" or merely "has nothing to look forward to but watching his teeth fall out one by one", and would naturally "embrace an opportunity to go out in a blaze of glory", there is no support for the contention. The description of Syrio never even begins to hint at despondency or any lack of love of life as compared with other people; to the contrary, he is chipper and seems fully engaged training Arya, as a man who loved life would be, he seems content (having agreed to proceed to Winterfell) with a job that he could never have expected would lead to an opportunity for a "glorious death"; and he fights like a very demon, as would a person who loves life. I've set forth my point-by-point objections to the lack of support for the vast majority of the premises (relating to Syrio's lack of future) in OiL's presentation, and a few posts back I looked it up again and pointed to it (post 200 in this thread, IIRC). Because this contention is truly unsupported - fabricated from whole cloth (please feel free to contest my point-by-point challenge supporting that conclusion) - it renders the argument wholly unfair. It's like entering into the record of a criminal trial a wholly unsupported slander of the suspect, when I believe the suspect is innocent. Huge battles are fought in court for the right to exclude unfairly prejudicial or speculative assertions as "evidence". OiL's contention is both speculative and unfairly prejudicial to this discussion.

I thought your post was quite well written and therefore deserved a reply. I reply with a technical mea culpa, but on the basic issue I have not, and will not, change my position unless new evidence supporting OiL's contention comes to light. I doubt this satisfies you, but it's the best I can do. On the evidence of which I'm aware (including that which has been offered), OiL's presentation, taken as a whole, is unfair, supporting a perfectly arguable position (Syrio died because he's a hero) with a countertextual story about Syrio lacking reason to live; that story both devalues Syrio's heroism and unfairly prejudices the argument about whether Syrio died, especially as a hero.

edit to remove an extra "the"

[AvengingAryaFan]

I'm still confused with this whole 'evidence-based approach' to determining what happened to Syrio. You aren't the only person who is doing it so I'm not singling you out in particular. I've seen it from a few posters.

To me, none of this discussion about swords and armored vs. unarmored, the layout of the black cells, the psychology of Syrio and his culture is relevant because of the rules of evidence do not apply.

Why, you ask?

BECAUSE SYRIO FOREL IS NOT A REAL PERSON. Nor is Meryn Trant,the guardsmen, Arya Stark, The Black Cells or anything else. They do not have ANY properties whatsoever except the ones GRRM needs to tell the story and make it plausible. He can use it as evidence (or as a red herring) in hindsight, but it doesn't tell you anything.

There's no 'probabilities' involved. If Syrio shows up dead, he's dead. If he shows up alive, he's alive. And if he never shows up again he's not anything.

Personally, I found Syrio's last scene confusing. The last bit gave me the impression we were supposed to believe Syrio was going to die heroically, but he was so bad-ass at the beginning, I found it hard to believe Trant could take him. I don't know if GRRM made it intentionally ambiguous or not.

I offered an explanation of my own a few pages back how Syrio could have survived. I like it because it's simple, relatively plausible, and doesnt' contradict anything we've seen or require massive ret-conning/explanation on the writer's part. But it's not really any better than the Syrio = Jaqen argument (which I'd never thought of). It doesn't make a lot of sense, but at least it gives Syrio a REASON to be re-introduced in the story.

Well, Syrio Forel exists textually - he has a virtual existence. We can only conjecture about the virtual Syrio that exists in Martin's mind, but he seems to play games with us - witness the Bran/Rickon "deaths", the Sandor "death", the Davos "death", and probably the Brienne "death". The game is, he tells us part of the story, and provides some hints (but nothing conclusive) as to other parts of the story, which he then reveals in due course (i.e., 5 to 15 years later). Meanwhile, we can only parse his "hints", the textual evidence that suggests what is really virtually "true" as far as George is concerned (and he is the god of this universe).

I have to believe George made it ambiguous intentionally, because he's just too expert a writer to have created a scene with so much "cliffhangeriness" by accident. Not everybody agrees.

What you did is what we - or at least I - have been trying to do: create a plausible explanation to resolve the ambiguity, an explanation that doesn't contradict any known textual "fact". The best explanations not only fail to contradict the text, but actively explain numerous other ambiguous textual facts and introduce as few unsupported conjectures as possible.

Why we bother is a question we probably don't ask ourselves enough. I guess it's because Martin's puzzles are fun, and he seems to play fair - doesn't do random things, rarely misleads without providing hints that suggest the truth.

But in the end, as you say, if he is reintroduced he lived, otherwise we can't know (or maybe Martin would reveal it after the series ends, if that ever happens). Personally, I think of him as Schrodinger's bravo, both dead and alive concurrently until definitive evidence pins down his state of being.