Syrio Forel

[jjames36]

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.

All of that is true.

But the very nature of literary theory is to look at the words in the text and then arrive at plausible theories to explain various ambiguities. People have been doing it for centuries (ever since the written word was invented and maybe even before that).

It is not sound literary theory to propose explanations that have no basis in text. I would guess that if you take any literature class in any college in the world, you'd hear the same thing. And that is why Avenging Arya, Errant Bard and many other posters prefer to support their theories with evidence from the text.

Why do we do it? I don't know. Probably because it's fun. In the end, it isn't likely to change much for Martin.

Also, as a small--and probably meaningless--point of clarification, let me point out that the discussion relating to the black cells had to do with Syrio equals Jaqen, not with whether Syrio is alive or dead.

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

This is what I was trying to say much earlier in the thread, Rydis. I'm a writer (two short stories published, hoping for more). I've critiqued many writers. I've been taught by many writers, some of them rather famous (Joyce Carol Oates, Ron Wallace jump to mind). And all of us have had the experience of a reader asking about, or complimenting, or criticizing something we never considered.

The best writers think about two things: characters and plot. Now Martin's plot is massively complex, as are his characters, so he has to think about a great deal more than lesser quality writers (like me), but there is still no conceivable way he can think about everything his readers debate. It's just not possible.

j

[Rydis]

I figured as much, but I still find it funny. I remember when I was a fan of evangelion show when I was in my young teens and seen people go on about metaphysics and other things wondering..why..going to such lengths to try to prove why something is the way it is that im sure people don't even bother to consider, because in the end, it doesn't really matter how it happened to arguing as to the possibilities is kind of mundane. I consdier it different then threads like R+L=J topics that speclate on what might happen. Always fun to read though.

[Errant Bard]

Speaking of metaphysics, authors may not think of everything readers will see in the text, but that doesn't negate the fact that they may inject some really deep stuff into their work, on purpose, and talks of metaphysics from readers can be accurate representations of what the author intended.

Oversimplification of a multilayered, exquisitely crafter work of art is worse than overthinking it. The former is actually implicitly assuming that the author is something like an unambitious simpleton, which is not exactly good.

[jjames36]

Speaking of metaphysics, authors may not think of everything readers will see in the text, but that doesn't negate the fact that they may inject some really deep stuff into their work, on purpose, and talks of metaphysics from readers can be accurate representations of what the author intended.

Oversimplification of a multilayered, exquisitely crafter work of art is worse than overthinking it. The former is actually implicitly assuming that the author is something like an unambitious simpleton, which is not exactly good.

Agreed. It is clear that Martin thought about R + L = J, whether it winds up being true or not, because there are so many clues that lead readers to it. It is also clear that Martin had much of his plot mapped out in advance; scenes like the House of the Undying tell us this. We also know he wanted us to consider whether Sandor is the Gravedigger, given all of the clues to that effect in that small page-wise space. And so forth. Many theories bandied about on this board are obviously intentionally concocted by the author. Note, though, that each of these examples is intricately tied to a character or the plot. R + L = J has a lot to do with who Ned is. It also has a lot to do with who Jon is. The Gravedigger has a lot to do with who Sandor is. R + L = J also has a great deal to do with the plot, as the Gravedigger might yet at some point. The same can be said for theories like Varys killing Tywin (a theory I personally know nothing about, but saw mentioned in this thread). If Varys committed that murder, it would tell us a great deal about Varys, and it might also tell us a great deal about the larger plot line.

Perhaps Syrio equals Jaqen is another such theory that Martin wanted us to debate. Perhaps it isn't. Maybe Syrio's fate is something Martin wanted us to consider. Maybe not. That he has said he's surprised by how many questions he gets vis a vis Syrio is one reason I think it might not be, but unless I were Martin's friend (I've never even met him) and he actually told me in confidence (which he probably wouldn't) there's no way for me to know.

What I do know is that Martin is a gifted writer specifically because his text is so multidimensional, so open to interpretation, and so complex, both from a character and a plot perspective. Please do not think I am trying to oversimplify or otherwise disregard the brilliance of Martin's complex creation. His level of complexity and internal consistency makes him one of the greatest writers I've had the pleasure to read. That is why I read him even though I generally avoid fantasy at all costs. It's also why I visit this board and no others discussing any other work of fiction.

But all of that said, he still can't anticipate everything his readers will latch onto. He's brilliant. But he's also human.

j

[Rydis]

Speaking of metaphysics, authors may not think of everything readers will see in the text, but that doesn't negate the fact that they may inject some really deep stuff into their work, on purpose, and talks of metaphysics from readers can be accurate representations of what the author intended.

Oversimplification of a multilayered, exquisitely crafter work of art is worse than overthinking it. The former is actually implicitly assuming that the author is something like an unambitious simpleton, which is not exactly good.

oh, I didn't mean it like that. But you're right. And with the above poster. I wasn't pointing it at things like R+L=J or trying to figure out if Sandor is the gravedigger. However, when we have something that is very unexplained, than people come up with highly analyzed ways that something is plausible, even if very unlikely, and back it up with that highly analyzed scenario which the author probably never intended or even thought about, I just find it humorous. Not that its wrong, its good to speculate and passes the time, and can be right on occasion. But like the metaphysical discussions they had about evangelion, sometimes its just like..I highly doubt they thought that much into it..and there is a more simple explanation or reason. We just over think it ;)

[corbon]

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.

I agree, it is a distinction without a difference.

That is why it is clearly still a gross misreading! (I have to admit to astonishment that jjames agreed to that misreading - he has previously displayed an outstanding consistency of comprehension - and I assume guess that he didn't actually reread the passage before doing so.)

And why, in still standing by this 'other' gross misreading (which is the same gross misreading dressed up in different clothes), there is still a judgement disconnect here.

The passage has nothing to do with death, except as an incidental. The passage is everything about life, instead. It is about living according to an ideal and an honour code (even if that means death), as opposed to giving away that lifelong ideal/code and as a result facing a sort of living death, fading away with nothing to live for.

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, it would simply be continuing to abide by the ethos he's lived his life by.

You must, surely, be able to see where you are interpreting almost the exact opposite of what is written, especially given the preceding paragraph (not requoted this time)?

He is not suicidal, he has not 'got no reason to live', he is simply choosing to accept (as he has always done), embrace even, that death is a possibility as he acts according to his ethos and that the alternative (abandoning his ethos) is surviving, growing older, and watching his teeth fall out.

Perhaps you understand why getting this so badly wrong undermines everything else you say?

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 agree with this description of Syrio, and I am confident that OiL shares that agreement, based on what she has written.

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.

As an aside, the only position that I am trying to get you to change is the unfair (AFAICS) and inaccurate description of the countertextual story.

As you say, the rest (Syrio dies because he is a hero) is perfectly reasonable position. :smoking:

FWIW (explaining where I am at more thoroughly, which I don't think I've done yet), I think win/not win is about even initially (around 50/50, I don't think we have enough evidence to give Syrio more than that given the final situation). That means that Syrio might have been able to defeat Trant, enough to escape initially, or might have simply been defeated (one strike would be enough) as he had just lost his weapon, and in a manner which seems to indicate he didn't have many options left in the fight (or is less than super-human and has just made a mistake, got an angle wrong etc). However, If Syrio won't run (everything we know about him tells us this), that means he has to beat Trant - not just knock him down (and then run, not!), but beat him enough to prevent any hue and cry as Syrio simply walks off whistling... :smug:

Given that later Trant displays no evidence of significant injury, and is armoured in such a way that knocking him out cold must surely be extremely unlikely, I don't see much reasonable chance for Syrio to have done this. That swings the balance to maybe 70/30 in favour of Trant winning the fight which must be 95%+, death for Syrio). :fencing:

What swings the balance or probability even further towards 'die', IMO, is that the Red Keep was sealed and closed to all. Syrio was a known Stark man so would not have been allowed out freely under almost any circumstance (in my estimation). For there to be no clues from GRRM that he was able to 'escape' the keep indicates to me that either that it was unimportant whether he did or not, because we won't be seeing him again, or he didn't escape it. On probability. For me. :ph34r:

So that, IMO, shifts the odds further to around 90/10 in favour of Syrio being dead - or at least out of the story... give or take a bit if I'm feeling generous about some of the possibilities I've discussesd.

OTOH, I recognise that I'm not at 100%, and that I shouldn't be at 100%. And if others assign different probabilities to different parts of the equation, they'll come out with different final odds to me. I might find some final odds difficult to believe, and guess that maybe the person estimating those odds missed a variable I think is important (like escaping the keep), but it is also entirely possible that that person simply assigns a very different importance or probability to various variables. So be it.

No one but GRRM knows... :read:

[cybroleach]

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.

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.'

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.

As somenone pointed out earlier this is afterall a book, basic reading comprehension does not allow for Syrio to sacrifice his stick to unbalance Trant. IF those rules apply I'm not even talking about writing (which GRRM is professional at). If you read "Jack runs down a hill." While it is possible Jack ran down a hill while doing kartwheels. The author of that quote clearly did not want you to think Jack was running down a hill doing jumping jacks or the guote would be "Jack runs down the hill doing kartwheel'. Even though the first line did not include it anyone who says Jack was doing Kartweels IS adding something not there which is story writting not reading. In real life a girl could possibly miss these things in a book it IS an impossibility. The only way for him to be unbalanced there is to rewrite what happened for the record in book five if Syrio returns and their conversation is 'Arya, "How did you survive? After he broke your stick I thought you were a gonner." Syrio, replies "Did you not see I tricked that knight into cutting my stick in half, unbalancing him so I could kick him in the knee and ..." Arya is being told someting that did not origionally happen an this that been added at this point, if his return is 'Arya, "How did you survive? After he broke your stick I thought you were a gonner." Syrio, replies "Well after he broke my stick, I ..." are two completely different things one is continung a story we did not see the other is a rewrite.

From a writing standpoint, GRRM is a professional and knows that a person is natually balanced, to write a scene where a person loses his balance, you need to comment that he's unbalanced, otherwise the reader has no reason to think said person was unbalanced which is the oposite of what the author is writing. As a professional GRRM knows all this.

In the bolded statement you're proving my point, any real unbalancing of Meryn can't be done till after he's cut the stick. If it were Syrio's master plan he would be ready to unbalance Meryn as you said with something else, now given that Meryn is noticable NOT unbalanced Syrio has to do this action almost instantainously, if there is a pause it's too long to say he's unbalanced by cutting his stick given he's not noticable unbalanced, if said action happened Ayra has time to see. To Illistraite this the timeline is Meryn slices Syrio's stick in half, Arya sees this, thinks Meryn is fully armoured with XYZ, thinks about Syrio's half stick vs Meryn's full stick, realizes he's doomed, turns and runs. Too much time elapses here in her head for Meryn to be unbalanced and her not notice let alone for him to be starting to unbalance AND Syrio doing something else to fully unbalance him. Now I'm not ruling out anything that happens after Arya turns Syrio can go for a legsweep and a thousand other things, however reading and writing wise it can't be happening in the 2 seconds she's thinking here which means he's sacrificing his sword to unbalance Meryn or she and by extension us would see.

For politness sake I will agree it is posible as you agreed my Howland Reed theory is. However I even mention this as my point awhile back "I'm not sure if he has not read the chaper in awihle or his reading comprehension is that bad." Outside these two things the only other thing that allows for this is bad writing that needs a rewrite later and GRRM is not going to make that big of a mistake. So I can also say with sertianty that did not happen.

[Roi Woodt]

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.

I am a Syrio is Faceless man believer, but I don't believe in the teacher thing. Syrio escaped his fate by changing into another 'face'. He met Arya in his new 'face' by accident. At that moment Syrio was death, just as Jaqen died when he changed into another 'face'. What we learn from the faceless man training, facechangers should be able to abandon the past, Jaqen is not supposed to know Arya, he is a different person, Syrio died.

Why Syrio, being a faceless man, was training Arya, is imo, because she is the Hand's daughter. And Hands needs killing even more often than kings. I think he took the job to move in an even better position in case there was need to kill someone from the court.

As a matter in fact, I think he had the same sort of reason for being the first sword of Braavos, it wouldn't surprise me if he killed his master himself (but that is irrelevant in this case).

[cybroleach]

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.

I find it curious you distinguish between confidence and beleiving you have a resonable chance, yet can claim willing to die & suicide are synonymous. I was literally using it as a synonym.

Well if we look back several pages, you can see how your posts are misleading this way, since many (likely all) people who beleive Syrio's dead do beleive Syrio was giving his life for any or all of those things. Now you're equally entitled to beleive he fights only because he beleives he has a reasonable chance. Perhaps here you should expand on how it suggests your position over Syrio dieing for the life of Arya, Syrio dieing beleiving it was his duty to keep her safe while he teaches her, Syrio was a proud Bravo warrior who NEVER backs down, AND any combination of the three. Now before you say I'm of the opinion he thought he would lose given all those reason why I beleive Syrio's fighting I don't think gave the situation a risk assessment at all, he acted and reacted.

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.

She IS all the way across a hall about to exit.

So he was not confident he could beat Meryn untill Ayra left the room and he had no distradtion? So we can agree him fighting Meryn was not a low risk situation even in his head if he can see Arya is being in real danger.

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?

The discription we get of Meryn so far have been: an adequate fighter, sly and crule, uncaring (two times), and does not use the ulgy thing inside his head. Meryn himself says he does what he's told.

Now your 'hints' can be easily explained without adding he's a coward. First that scene in the thrown room his inaction is not because he and the other four are cowards but because the king is conducting matters of state and their job is to be his silent shadows ready to save him at a moments notice not interfer with his business, and Barristan does wait long for anyone to step up even if Meryn was insulted enough to attack Barristan in the kings audence chamber. As for beating Sansa, this IS where most of his discriptions come from Sansa asking him about and him just not caring, Jaime asking him about it to again see he does not care, he did what he was told.

Why would Meryn want kill Syrio after Arya leaves you ask? Because as Jaime tells us he's crule, Syrio prevents him from doing what he was told, and he's gonna have to answer for it to Cersei, might as well kill him to vent and alternatively during the coupe all Stark ppl were slaghtered why would Trant decide he doesn't want to kill him.

The line about him not using his head infers he's a thinking mans warrior.

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.

It could have been a sacrifice sure, however it either fails or serves the same purpose as throwing the stick away. It does not help him after his stick is broke and Arya turns away he can dodge another strike, and get a real sword or bull rush Meryn or ... to beat Meryn. However he's still gotta come up with a new plan to not only avoid geting cut in half but hurt his oponent enough to make Meryn re-evaluate his continuing the fight.

If you look at Meryn's position rather than Syrio's. He's watched Syrio handle these five men handidly. Now he's sizing Syrio up noticing that Syrio is taking advantage of their clumseyness, if he himself were clumsey he'd be more worried here before he choose to fight Syrio personally. He also notices how fast Syrio and is very confident dispite this. His mind is made up here that those guys were clumsey oafs Syrio's not going to give him time to reevaluate this & people tend to be stuborn on their conclusions ;) . After this he is busy thinking of ways to kill Syrio he's not going to take time to think about those guys, Syrio has to change his mind by showing Trant he CAN hurt him which is Trant's ace in hole, this is the only reason he would be afraid enough to slink away.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

OiL's words clearly said Syrio had no reason to live, that's all; they didn't say he was suicidal.

Actually, I didn't even say that much.

"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? He gets a job teaching fencing to the hand's daughter, when events provide him with one last opportunity to really exercise his skill and his fearlessness, defending his client's daughter. He actually starts talking like a bravo, mocking his opponents and declaring that he does not run away from a fight.

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?"

I offered some answers to my own rhetorical question, but however seductive they might be they are not all-encompassing. Presumably Syrio would find enjoyment of various sorts in his remaining days, things that are in themselves worth living for.

That's not the point at all though....it's not that I think he has NO reasons to live, but that his reasons to live are insufficiently compelling for him to abandon his personal code of conduct. "The First Sword of Braavos does not run" sure sounds like a declaration of such to me. And to be sure, I don't think Syrio would choose dishonour over death when he was a young man, either. And while it may be that no one is currently arguing that Syrio would break his word and run as soon as Arya was out of sight, it was definitely being argued back in 2008 when my statement from the old thread was made.

But he's not a young man anymore, either. There's a reason that a life cut short in the flower of youth is seen as a greater tragedy than the death of someone well stricken in years who has already lived a rich, full life. With Syrio in the latter category, preferring death before dishonour (if the choice needed to be made) is even easier than it would have been when he was young. And if he has no family, the risk of death is even easier yet, unlike Ned who dishonoured himself by making a false confession for the sake of his daughter.

Anyway, it's strange that a 2 year old post has been the subject of so much obsessive dissection, in this thread. Surely there's more relevant material from the story itself to discuss?

ETA: looking back at the last few posts, I'm basically just repeating what Corbon said.

[Rydis]

I am a Syrio is Faceless man believer, but I don't believe in the teacher thing. Syrio escaped his fate by changing into another 'face'. He met Arya in his new 'face' by accident. At that moment Syrio was death, just as Jaqen died when he changed into another 'face'. What we learn from the faceless man training, facechangers should be able to abandon the past, Jaqen is not supposed to know Arya, he is a different person, Syrio died.

Why Syrio, being a faceless man, was training Arya, is imo, because she is the Hand's daughter. And Hands needs killing even more often than kings. I think he took the job to move in an even better position in case there was need to kill someone from the court.

As a matter in fact, I think he had the same sort of reason for being the first sword of Braavos, it wouldn't surprise me if he killed his master himself (but that is irrelevant in this case).

What would make you think that though? They had no involvement in the past hands killing (that we know of at all) and if they wanted a king dead..or anyone..they could do it easily enough without going through all this kind of trouble. Training the hands daughter dont really help them accomplish anything. And for the other faceless men we see in the series..hardly anything counts as accidential with them.

If he was going after the hand..he wouldn't of stayed fighting trent and let arya escape..it wouldn't of mattered. Then if hands are they ones they want killing..why did he leave? Like I said..im just trying to find anything that flows logically from the theory.

[Roi Woodt]

What would make you think that though? They had no involvement in the past hands killing (that we know of at all) and if they wanted a king dead..or anyone..they could do it easily enough without going through all this kind of trouble. Training the hands daughter dont really help them accomplish anything. And for the other faceless men we see in the series..hardly anything counts as accidential with them.

If he was going after the hand..he wouldn't of stayed fighting trent and let arya escape..it wouldn't of mattered. Then if hands are they ones they want killing..why did he leave? Like I said..im just trying to find anything that flows logically from the theory.

Although I have a theory that the Faceless Man where hired to kill Jon Arryn, I won't use it here. The faceless men are a guild that provides assassins for everyone who wants to hire them. In Westeros, the most likely area to find your victims, is, I think you would agree, KingsLanding. That's, imo, why Syrio is there in the first place, discretely traning his waterdancer lessons (in which I mean, he has a job that doens't raise any questions, and doens't demonstrate his true capacities, because that would, probably, raise questions).

Than he gets an opportunity to move even closer to his 'most-likely' victims (not yet however, if one hand can die, so can the other) by training the Hand's daughter. Not only is he closer to the Hand, but closer to all the others as well. Imo, that's why he is there. He doesn't have a target (or mission) yet, not in kingsLanding, not anywhere, and therefor he chooses to be in a position that would give him a head-start if they have to kill Ned, Robert, Cercei, or anyone in the inner circle.

Than he nearly got himself killed and he escaped luckily from the black cells. Than Arya took got her three names. And only than he got himself another mission, which is why he asked Arya to hurry up.

Hopefully my logic is understandable, even if you don't agree.

[Rydis]

Although I have a theory that the Faceless Man where hired to kill Jon Arryn, I won't use it here. The faceless men are a guild that provides assassins for everyone who wants to hire them. In Westeros, the most likely area to find your victims, is, I think you would agree, KingsLanding. That's, imo, why Syrio is there in the first place, discretely traning his waterdancer lessons (in which I mean, he has a job that doens't raise any questions, and doens't demonstrate his true capacities, because that would, probably, raise questions).

Than he gets an opportunity to move even closer to his 'most-likely' victims (not yet however, if one hand can die, so can the other) by training the Hand's daughter. Not only is he closer to the Hand, but closer to all the others as well. Imo, that's why he is there. He doesn't have a target (or mission) yet, not in kingsLanding, not anywhere, and therefor he chooses to be in a position that would give him a head-start if they have to kill Ned, Robert, Cercei, or anyone in the inner circle.

Than he nearly got himself killed and he escaped luckily from the black cells. Than Arya took got her three names. And only than he got himself another mission, which is why he asked Arya to hurry up.

Hopefully my logic is understandable, even if you don't agree.

Its understandable..but yeah..im not convinced at all :)

Nothing we know of the faceless mens really supports it. But then again..we dont know enough. Everyone in Braavos with arya had something to do. They didn't just wait around in a likely area where some one "might" want to have someone killed.

Being Syrio doesn't really support getting close to an inner circle via arya either..as he can kill anyone and take their place. He could of easily killed Ned..Cersei, anyone in the kingsguard, and accomplished the same tasks..just as easy with much better results.

Want about skills also? Syrio definitly proved himself during his time. Nothing suggests faceless man can actually copy a persons ability. They do seem to possess a sort of magic..however I highly doubt the man had the ability of Syrio if he was a faceless man. He would of had to been just as good as Syrio before killing him..and he would of needed a reason to be Syrio. Killing a random person, to go to a different continant just to wait for something unknown doesn't fit the Faceless man style. They always seem to have a reason for what they do.

one a side note, he was Jaquen before he left kings landing, and had a mission goign to harranhal and was the alchemist before he left. He must of had a mission already that warranted him being with the other two men to get to where he needed to go, and to become pate long before we see him again in AFFC.

I can give you..what was syrio doing in westeros though. That's the only really strange thing to me.

[Roi Woodt]

Being Syrio doesn't really support getting close to an inner circle via arya either..as he can kill anyone and take their place. He could of easily killed Ned..Cersei, anyone in the kingsguard, and accomplished the same tasks..just as easy with much better results.

I am not sure if he could easily kill someone for their face, maybe it isn't as easy as you make it out to be. It's suggested that the whole Pate stealing key thing is for taking over his face, but that's, iirc, a theory in itself. And he can take over someone's face, but not someones behaviour, he should hit immediately, otherwise he has a hard time explaining everything he doesn't know.

Want about skills also? Syrio definitly proved himself during his time. Nothing suggests faceless man can actually copy a persons ability. They do seem to possess a sort of magic..however I highly doubt the man had the ability of Syrio if he was a faceless man. He would of had to been just as good as Syrio before killing him..and he would of needed a reason to be Syrio. Killing a random person, to go to a different continant just to wait for something unknown doesn't fit the Faceless man style. They always seem to have a reason for what they do.

I think he simply was that good, and the Syrio before him, probably wasn't. Note that Jaqen isn't bad himself, sneaking up on Arya when she is praying in the forrest. Even though she had lessons from a master water dancer, she didn't hear him coming.

one a side note, he was Jaquen before he left kings landing, and had a mission goign to harranhal and was the alchemist before he left. He must of had a mission already that warranted him being with the other two men to get to where he needed to go, and to become pate long before we see him again in AFFC.

Is that so? I don't think so, it's the names he needed from Arya that made him go to Harrenhal.

[Rydis]

Is that really so though? Because we get a glipse of the worshiped gods in the temple of black and white, and I dont recall R'hollor being one of those. I recall the Stranger..and they mention a few gods for death..but R'hollor is a god of life.

[jjames36]

(I have to admit to astonishment that jjames agreed to that misreading - he has previously displayed an outstanding consistency of comprehension - and I assume guess that he didn't actually reread the passage before doing so.)

To be fair, I didn't accept any misreading, at least not that I'm aware--perhaps if you're more specific as to what you're talking about, I'll realize I did. What I think I said is that the words, 'Syrio has no reason to live' could, under normal circumstances, lead to the conclusion that 'Syrio is suicidal.' It doesn't need to lead to this conclusion. Just that it could.

Then, I said the context in which these words (allegedly) appeared made it clear that OiL was not arguing Syrio was suicidal. So the circumstance was not the same. And in this case the reading was inaccurate.

Actually, I didn't even say that much.

"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? He gets a job teaching fencing to the hand's daughter, when events provide him with one last opportunity to really exercise his skill and his fearlessness, defending his client's daughter. He actually starts talking like a bravo, mocking his opponents and declaring that he does not run away from a fight.

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?"

You're right. You didn't even say that much. I actually knew the specific words didn't appear in your original text, but chose not to make an issue of it for the sake of not opening another tangential argument that would cloud the issues the thread is really trying to discuss. In hindsight, that was a bad choice.

That's not the point at all though....it's not that I think he has NO reasons to live, but that his reasons to live are insufficiently compelling for him to abandon his personal code of conduct. "The First Sword of Braavos does not run" sure sounds like a declaration of such to me. And to be sure, I don't think Syrio would choose dishonour over death when he was a young man, either. And while it may be that no one is currently arguing that Syrio would break his word and run as soon as Arya was out of sight, it was definitely being argued back in 2008 when my statement from the old thread was made.

But he's not a young man anymore, either. There's a reason that a life cut short in the flower of youth is seen as a greater tragedy than the death of someone well stricken in years who has already lived a rich, full life. With Syrio in the latter category, preferring death before dishonour (if the choice needed to be made) is even easier than it would have been when he was young. And if he has no family, the risk of death is even easier yet, unlike Ned who dishonoured himself by making a false confession for the sake of his daughter.

I also knew that this was your position. I attempted to represent that knowledge in the following passage: "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."

Now that passage didn't acknowledge the need to avoid dishonoring himself. It should have. Again, my mistake.

Anyway, it's strange that a 2 year old post has been the subject of so much obsessive dissection, in this thread.

Honestly, I didn't even realize it was a two-year-old-post. It is a little strange that it has finally generated this much attention.

j

[jjames36]

For politness sake I will agree it is posible as you agreed my Howland Reed theory is. Outside these two things the only other thing that allows for this is bad writing that needs a rewrite later and GRRM is not going to make that big of a mistake.

I agree with every argument you made in the beginning of this post. In my estimation, it wouldn't be very good writing to suddenly have Syrio appear to tell Arya that she didn't see what was really happening--if he did that, the author would have literally hid the story from his readers for the better part of 4 books. And Martin isn't likely to do that--he's far too talented a writer. This is just one of many reasons I think Avenging Arya's scenario is unlikely. (I think I tried to make a point similar to this one--if not the same--when I discussed how long the alleged "cliffhanger" has been left hanging.)

So I've only quoted the above, because this polite admission is all I was trying to elicit. It's not textually impossible that Avenging Arya's scenario didn't happen. We both think it's rather unlikely, but impossible and unlikely are not the same thing.

So I can also say with sertianty that did not happen.

It's dangerous to say anything with certainty. The odds that Martin will do it might be almost zero. But you never know for certain.

j

[cybroleach]

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.

I wanted to ask you about this earlier but was sidetracked. What is the diference between Syrio being dead and being alive but not returning to the plot? Using a literary dire ending to write him out and not have him return. Is it just a personal thing you'd rather have him alive somehow even though he's no longer in ASOIAF?

I right now give him a slim chance of surviving and it shrinks with every page he doesn't return (or reveal he was a FM) to absolute zero at the end of the book.

[The Mance]

I right now give him a slim chance of surviving and it shrinks with every page he doesn't return (or reveal he was a FM) to absolute zero at the end of the book.

Given that most people who think Syrio is alive believe that he will show up in Bravos to effect Arya's return to Westeros, why would you have any expectation of him having returned yet?

[corbon]

To be fair, I didn't accept any misreading, at least not that I'm aware--perhaps if you're more specific as to what you're talking about, I'll realize I did. What I think I said is that the words, 'Syrio has no reason to live' could, under normal circumstances, lead to the conclusion that 'Syrio is suicidal.' It doesn't need to lead to this conclusion. Just that it could.

Crap! I've made a similar mistake in some ways. AAF didn't actually say it was your position, merely that it was a description 'submitted by you'.

:blushing:

So, err, sorry old man, what!.

I did say I was astonished... ;)