Syrio neither dead nor Jaqen

[AryaSnow]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1603163' date='Nov 29 2008, 21.23']Cheers, same feeling indeed, only I usually think of Arya as having the potential to be like Felisin Paran from [i]the Malazan Book of the Fallen[/i], only well written.[/quote]
I'm reading the second book of the Erikson series.
The characters aren't particulary were written. ASOIAF is really better in this, no comparison. For now Felisin seems to me the most interesting one (despite my favourite is Aspalar for a matter of subjective preference).
Anyway... for what I've read, Felisin is very very different from Arya.
1)Arya has a much stronger morality. But you are talking about the "potential"...
2)The most important thing: Felisin seems to me a [i]weak[/i] person. Arya is the opposite. And I think this really will never change.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='AryaSnow' post='1603151' date='Nov 29 2008, 20.58']Sorry, but why are you so drastic?
I don't think neither she's a saint nor she's the classic fantasy sweet tomboy. But it doesn't mean that she is a villain. I consider her a grey character, but more good than bad.[/quote]Because if she was like you think she would be the classic tomboy with an edge. It's not interesting, it's even boring in a Forgotten Realms king of way. Everyone in literature has survivors doing borderline things yet staying the heroes, the good guys cheered by the readers. On the other hand, an exploration of how someone can become a "bad guy" (to use simple terms) while making us understand him, that is interesting. Noone does it, ever, and Martin has the perfect opportunity here, and I believe he aimed for that from the start. I understand it is distressing to have a good guy become a villain, but isn't it the very reason many boarders invoke when comparing favorably ASOIAF to other works, that ability of GRRM to not cater to the short term needs of the readers and instead let a consistent, realistic story flow, without sparing the "good guys" from what they logically deserve, to the contrary of other fantasy where it seems their goodness is the only shield they need?

[quote]Maybe she [i]will[/i] become an immoral person (notice: "immoral" doesn't necessarily mean "crazy" or "monster"), I don't exclude this. It wouldn't have been strange, after all her experiences. We'll see. But [i]now[/i] she isn't.[/quote]Amoral character, amoral, not immoral. Someone amoral can do immoral things, but there is a vast difference between the two, in particular the amoral character doesn't recognize good and wrong, while the immoral one does and choose the wrong.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='AryaSnow' post='1603171' date='Nov 29 2008, 21.38']I'm reading the second book od the Erikson series.
The characters aren't particulary were written. ASOIAF is really better in this, no comparison. For now Felisin seems to me the most interesting one (despite my favourite is Aspalar for a matter of subjective preference).
Anyway... for what I've read, Felisin is very very different from Arya.
1)Arya has a much stronger morality. But you are talking about the "potential"...
2)The most important thing: Felisin seems to me a [i]weak[/i] person. Arya is the opposite. And I think this really will never change.[/quote]No, that wasn't really what I was talking about. I wasn't comparing neither personalities nor potential. I was talking of a character that changes from a pretty common good guy archetype into someone dislikable, nasty and overall on the other side of the fance compared to the big damn heroes. But yes, I agree that the writing of Malazan isn't the best (and it's not the worst thing about this series) that's why at least once I hope to see that inversion of values in a character done right and sensibly, and the character of Arya has that potential in ASOIAF.

Either way, you're not done with reading about Felisin, so I won't spoil (I think you'll need to get to at least the middle of BoneHunters for us to be able to talk without much limitation about that character). Not that I care overly much, as in my humble opinion, Malazan is about as worth reading as WoT, and it is not a compliment. :P

[switters]

[quote name='chessRuffian' post='1577419' date='Nov 4 2008, 17.03']so by this argument, we are to believe that one hell of a thought out character like Syrio dies in an unknown fashion, and then is never talked about again? (except when arya thinks about him). So A master author like GRRM would just let a beloved character's fate pretty much be left unresolved to the reader?[/quote]

Yep. This is exactly what a "master author" like GRRM would do. Unresolved character/plot points are a big part of what makes books fun to write, read, and discuss.

I believe Syrio is DEAD. If so, his sacrifice is much more meaningful and emotionally provacative. His death would also fit nicely within the "mentor's self-sacrifice" archetype (Gandalf, Obi-Wan, Moiraine, etc.).

[Fat Belwas]

From Wikipedia, the requirements to be labeled a sociopath:

[quote]Three or more of the following are required:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.[/quote]

Does Arya qualify?

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Fat Belwas' post='1603190' date='Nov 29 2008, 22.18']From Wikipedia, the requirements to be labeled a sociopath:
[...]
Does Arya qualify?[/quote]
We’ve had this exact conversation many times before, including the Wikipedia quotation.

It is my belief that GRRM took this, or some other available clichéd description of a sociopath, and modelled Arya on it. It fits [i]too[/i] well, down to the “crooked stitches” that are the first thing we learn about her.

[Lord Renly]

[quote]Not really, no, it more like arguing with a guy asking for money for his drugs who argues about how the police on the other side of town has guns. A guy who will give you what you ask if you give him the money, who risks the same as you if he goes to the police, and who cannot stop you if you decide to not buy anyway.[/quote]


No. The woman is [i]not risking the same as Arya[/i]. She will be believed over Arya. And, to get back to the hypo, he's not arguing about how the "police on the other side of town has guns." He's arguing that the police on the other side of the town has guns and will use them on [i]you[/i] rather than him.

It's also not quite true that the woman "cannot stop her if she decides to not buy anyway," as AryaSnow highlighted in her quote from the book. The woman doesn't say "Go through with the sale, or walk away, or we go to the lord." She says, go through with the sale, "[b]else we go[/b]" to the lord. Whether she would have brought Arya to the lord if Arya didn't go through with the transaction is unknown. But she probably [i]could[/i] have. Arya is a little girl, and alone. The woman is a grown person and if she yelled out "Horse thief!" and everyone in the area heard her, would they have stopped her from dragging this ragged little urchin to the castle? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they would have [i]helped[/i] her do so.

Regardless, Arya does not have the practical option of not going through with the sale as she is desperate for cash.


[quote]You mean she cared for them. Tell me when she risks her life for them when it's not a benefit to her, and notice how her streaks of compassion decrease as time goes by, that all we are arguing.[/quote]

All the time. Arya isn't practically weighing costs and benefits every time she risks her life for someone. She also risks her life for Rorge, Biter and Jaqen. I'd love to hear how she thought this would benefit her.

As for your interpretation of her rescue of Sam, it's totally unsupported. We don't even know that Arya is still interested in going to the Wall at that point (though it's a fair bet she is), let alone that the only reason she saved him was for that purpose, and that she wouldn't have done it otherwise. The only thing we do know is that she stuck her neck out to save him. [b]ETA:[/b] Arya also does not "lose all interest" in Sam once she realizes he's not going to the Wall. In fact, she volunteers to help him find Dareon after learning that.

You are simply [i]beginning from the assumption[/i] that Arya is a sociopath and then interpreting her
every act in the worst possible light. If you start from that assumption, of course you'll end up there. Looked at without that bias, all we see is Arya saving someone at her own risk.




[quote]That doesn't mean they have a right to it or that the sane reaction is wanting to murder whoever gives you less than you need. Be careful, next time you give money to an homeless girl, it's likely she'll be wanting to assassinate you and would do it if there wasn't other people around.[/quote]

Your example is flawed. The woman isn't "giving money" to Arya. If I try to take something from a homeless girl for a lot less than what it's worth, and then when she complains I laugh in her face and say "Hahahaha, sucker, the cops will believe ME over YOU!", well....I wouldn't blame her for having a momentary thought of "I want to kill Lord Renly!"

[quote]Because 1) it's not cheating, it's fair price at the gray market[/quote]

There's nothing "fair" about giving someone less than what a horse is worth. It's to be [i]expected[/i], for those who are savvy (which Arya is not, at least not where 'gray markets' are concerned),
but it's hardly "fair."

[quote]It is a fact that she stole this horse[/quote]

It is not a fact that she stole this horse. AryaSnow has dealt with this matter quite well: Arya [i]found[/i] the horse and had no way of finding its rightful owner.

[quote]It's more than a passing thought for Arya, as she has been known to go through with the killing at least once[/quote]

She's [i]killed[/i] before, yes. She's never killed out of sheer rage at being cheated before. So having a moment of wanting to kill, in reaction to being presented with the option of being cheated or risking death, [i]is[/i] a passing thought.

[quote]4) Morals are independent from circumstances, you cannot say "I know I murdered that passer-by, but I was angry, and poor, and I needed his boots"[/quote]

And if Arya had ever murdered someone for his boots, this would be relevant.

And of course circumstances matter. If you have a momentary thought of wishing harm to someone, the whys and hows of that matter tremendously.


[quote]Ned refusal to have Cersei killed, Robert forgiving his opponents, Dany just leaving after Qarth made threats, Brienne not wanting to kill shagwell, Jon not wanting to kill Ygritte, etc. It's not a reaction specifically, either it's the difference between the general attitude of Arya and theirs, they do not have the same angle on life and the taking of it. Arya as she is in the end would have killed Ygritte, Shagwell, Cersei, or Selmy outright.[/quote]

That's an unsupported assertion, and your examples are unresponsive to my question. I asked for textual evidence that other characters would not have a fleeting thought about killing the woman [i]in Arya's situation[/i]. (Obviously none of the characters can be in Arya's exact situation, but a rough approximation would do.) Other characters refraining from killing aren't really relevant, because Arya doesn't kill this woman.

Also, Ned, Brienne and Robert act from positions of [i]power[/i]. They are being magnanimous when they have the [i]whip hand[/i]. When Arya has the whip hand, she can be magnanimous as well (for instance, to those prisoners in the cages) and she observes Dareon for quite a while before killing him--who knows, perhaps if he'd had a more sympathetic reason for deserting, maybe she would have spared him. Ned certainly doesn't spare Night's Watch deserters, so Arya killing Dareon is no less magnanimous than Ned.

As for whether she'd spare Cersei, well, Ned only spares Cersei in an attempt to let her get away with [i]her children[/i] who are innocent and who [i]Robert[/i] will certainly want to kill once he finds out their [i]genetic antecedents[/i]. So 1) citing Robert as somehow more respectful of life than Arya is a bit bizarre, and 2) we never see Arya abandoning people like Tommen and Myrcella to the tender mercies of people who want to kill them, which is what Ned [i]not[/i] warning Cersei would have done.

More important is the question of the characters' [i]wants[/i], since we're talking about a fleeting thought Arya had and not an action. Brienne does [i]want[/i] to kill Shagwell. The way she kills him--stabbing him repeatedly while yelling "LAUGH!"--indicates that she's enthusiastic about it and found it satisfying. It is by no means a clean and reluctant kill. When he "yields," she makes him dig Dick's grave, knowing full well that he'll betray her and she'll kill him but getting some labor out of him first. Why do you assume Arya wouldn't do that? Does anyone yield to her? I don't think so. Same goes for the Selmy issue: Selmy was injured and yielding. As Maia pointed out, Arya is small and weak and therefore gets few opportunities for magnanimity because people generally don't plead with her to spare their lives. Given that she saves Rorge and Biter and Jaqen at risk to her own life, there's no call to assume she wouldn't refrain from killing Selmy, especially if she needed him for something (which Robert did).

Robert wants to kill lots of people. Ned doesn't, because Ned is not a hotheaded or angry person. This is not what makes him moral, though. Tywin Lannister and Jaqen H'gar and Varys are not hotheaded or angry and we never get any indication that they [i]want[/i] to kill people or do any kind of violence. Are they more moral than Catelyn Stark, who fantasizes about killing people? Or Jaime, who fantasizes about killing his own sister because she cheated on him? I don't think so. Being hotheaded and angry is a question of temperament, not morals. Tywin and Jaqen and Varys do not refrain from thoughts of killing because they're moral empathetic humanitarians. They do so because they're coldblooded and only think of killing when they're actually intending to go through with it.

As for Jon killing Ygritte, if you re-read that you'll see it was because Ygritte is a woman. Jon spared her out of male chivalry for women, which of course Arya does not have, not out of general concern for human life.

[quote]I never said it was, I said it denotes a certain outlook, frame of mind, whatever you call it, and in Arya's case, that frame of mind is to evaluate if taking life is possible before any other thought, when it is possible and practical, she does it.[/quote]

Not really. For one thing, I don't buy that her thought of killing the woman is an "evaluation." It's far too brief and vague for that. If she thought, not just about "killing" the woman, but about (for instance) "darting in and cutting her throat" or "sneaking up behind her and stabbing her" or something, then I might call it an evaluation. As it is, it just looks like a generalized wish. Lots of people have generalized wishes to "kill" others. In order to be dangerous, the thoughts must be more specific because details bring them closer to becoming a reality.

But even if you want to call it an evaluation, it's far from a habit for Arya to think of killing for frivolous (i.e., non-life and death) reasons. Everyone wrings their hands about Arya having brief thoughts of killing Gendry and Hot Pie when they find out her life-threatening secret, but that's a very extreme circumstance where her life is at stake and killing them is the [i]only[/i] 100% sure way of saving her life from that particular threat. So no, Arya does not generally "evaluate if taking life is possible before any other thought" and then automatically do it if it is possible and practical. She evaluates ways to keep herself safe, and if taking a life is the surest one, she'll consider it. She gets angry at the horse-buyer woman and has a brief thought of killing her, but that is a solitary moment.
It is not a "frame of mind" for her.

[quote]What would it take for you to admit Arya has mental problems?[/quote]

Is anyone [i]denying[/i] this? Of course she has mental problems! She's a kid in a warzone who's had to learn how to kill. And she's certainly [i]desensitized[/i]. But I don't think there's textual support for the idea that she has [i]moral[/i] problems. That is, I don't think there's evidence that a kinder, better, more moral person would be reacting differently to her situation. I also don't think her desensitization is any greater than your average child caught either in a warzone or as a male noble in Westerosi society. Maia's arguments about this are very convincing.

As for Arya's future, there's a whole lot of gray between "tomboy with a heart of gold" and "uber assassin." And the gray is more interesting than either extreme. So that is where I hope and expect to see her. In fact that's where I already see her...she's far more ruthless than the usual "edgy tomboy," who's not even truly edgy but only superficially so. Also, I don't buy for a second that she's a sociopath. The literature about sociopaths suggests that most would be the [i]exact opposite[/i] of Arya in many key ways.

[AryaSnow]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1603173' date='Nov 29 2008, 21.39']Because if she was like you think she would be the classic tomboy with an edge. It's not interesting, it's even boring in a Forgotten Realms king of way. Everyone in literature has survivors doing borderline things yet staying the heroes, the good guys cheered by the readers. On the other hand, an exploration of how someone can become a "bad guy" (to use simple terms) while making us understand him, that is interesting.[/quote]
I quite disagree.
1) I'm not talking about an almost completely white character, with only a small gray shadow, but about a gray character but more white than black. It's different.
2) I really think there is no comparison with other typical fantasy books. Other fantasy book are too "sweet and politically correct" on the whole. Martin's world is much more violent and realistic, so its whole character setting slides in a darker direction. The flawed heroes of the other fantasy books would be completely absurd in ASOIAF. The "good guys" of ASOIAF would look much darker in the typical fairy-tale fantasy books. So, when I say that someome in ASOIAF is a "good guy", I'm not asserting that he's like a typical fantasy hero.
Arya (yes, like I think she is) would shock all the typical fantasy heroes :P
It's a good thing because I really dislike classic fantasy novels. Wanting a boring character, like in these books, is very very far from me.

[quote]I understand it is distressing to have a good guy become a villain, but isn't it the very reason many boarders invoke when comparing favorably ASOIAF to other works, that ability of GRRM to not cater to the short term needs of the readers and instead let a consistent, realistic story flow, without sparing the "good guys" from what they logically deserve, to the contrary of other fantasy where it seems their goodness is the only shield they need?[/quote]
Oh, I really don't think about the ASOIAF "good characters" as characters "with their goodness as the only shield they need". An ASOIAF character doesn't need at all to become "bad" to be interesting.

[quote]Amoral character, amoral, not immoral. Someone amoral can do immoral things, but there is a vast difference between the two, in particular the amoral character doesn't recognize good and wrong, while the immoral one does and choose the wrong.[/quote]
Oh yes. You are right. "Amoral" in a more correct word. Arya [i]might[/i] become an amoral person in the future. But I really don't know if she will or not. Now she isn't.
Anyway, even if in the next books she becomes amoral, it doesn't mean that she'll be the monster that some extremist Arya-haters describe :rolleyes:

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1603177' date='Nov 29 2008, 21.53']No, that wasn't really what I was talking about. I wasn't comparing neither personalities nor potential. I was talking of a character that changes from a pretty common good guy archetype into someone dislikable, nasty and overall on the other side of the fance compared to the big damn heroes.[/quote]
Instead in my opinion Arya is very likeable. As a person too. :smoking:
Felisin is much more dislikeable (as a person), even if I quite understand her.

[quote]Either way, you're not done with reading about Felisin, so I won't spoil (I think you'll need to get to at least the middle of BoneHunters for us to be able to talk without much limitation about that character). Not that I care overly much, as in my humble opinion, Malazan is about as worth reading as WoT, and it is not a compliment. :P[/quote]
What WoT is? Sorry, I don't understand the abbreviation :P
Anyway I like very much Malazan. But I definitely prefer ASOIAF and its characters are much better.

EDIT: ah, maybe... Wheel of Time?:)

[AvengingAryaFan]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1603019' date='Nov 29 2008, 09.49']The genius of Martin is making all of us care for Arya and while making her go that dark road. I hopes he goes through with it and really produces with her a character who will be cheered on for immoral, disturbing and scary acts because most readers cannot go past first impressions and acknowledge that if a non-PoV character was doing the same thing (especially to a liked guy), he would be reviled (see Catelyn vs Jon/Tyrion). In the end I expect he will really turn her into a villain, that's something that is sorely missing in medias, compared to the tons of reformed bad guys or badasses with a heart of gold. That Arya was to join an assassin group worshipping death before the now defunct five years gap (which would have made Arya undergo 5 years of assassin training, and show her again when she was 15), that she consciously tries to be someone else than Arya, and that she severs the link to her wolf in AFFC only reinforces my convinction that not only Arya is not right in the head now but she isn't going to get better anytime soon. (and please don't talk about how the FM could not be so bad, GRRM isn't compatible with a cheesy assassin order who are really good guys)[/quote]
A clear difference of opinion, well stated. Some of us see Arya as a truly good person who happens to be desensitized ... not to people, at all, but to death [i]per se[/i], and we see that as a very useful characteristic in Westeros. Arya will not become a villain unless and until she ceases to be a [i]good person[/i], irrespective of whether she continues killing or not. It depends on who she kills, and why.

I believe that you're correct about the dearth of beloved fictional characters who go down the slippery slope to villainy, and as such it would be a novel trope. It would be high art in one sense, but anti-popular art, holding up a mirror to the worst aspects of human possibility. How many people really love to linger over Animal Farm? Artistic, yes, but very unpleasant.

In the end, authors are entertainers, and though GRRM has promised a bitter-sweet ending, he hasn't said he's going to bring the story to as depressing a conclusion as possible. So while I can understand and even appreciate that you want to see Arya become evil, I'm surprised that's what you expect GRRM to do. Could be, but I sure wouldn't hold my breath.

[AryaSnow]

[quote]1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;[/quote]
1) What does "social norms" mean? In Westeros there is also a social norm that says that women haven't to fight and have to like pretty dresses. Are all the warrior women and in general all the people with a rebellious attitude sociopaths? Giordano Bruno was a sociopath, Gandhi too. Ok... :rolleyes:
2) About the legality of the action, the situation is important too. In Westeros Gregor and the Tickler are lawful (his lord and his king allows him to do what he does). If a poor peasant would have killed one of the Gregor's men, he definitely "would have performed an act on the ground of arrest". Oh, and Josef Mengele was lawful too, a jew trying to escape from nazies not.

[quote]2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;[/quote]
If she someone needs to be deceitful, to lie often and to use aliases to survive, is he a sociopath? And survival is also a "personal profit". Ok, so sociopath = not full idiot :P Very well. Arya is definitely a sociopath :smoking:

[quote]3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;[/quote]
Impulsive persons are sociopaths? :stunned:
Ok, I'm a sociopath. Many people I know too.

[quote]4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;[/quote]
Ok, all the warrior characters often take part in physical fights. They are all sociopaths.
All your family is dead, you are homeless etc etc and you can't be irritable, you have to stay serene. LoL

[quote]5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;[/quote]
She cares about her and other's safety. She tries to survive and she has often saved/helped other people.

[quote]6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;[/quote]
Ok, she's a sociopath for not wanting to be a typical noble lady. Asha is a sociopath too.
Robert too.

[quote]7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.[/quote]
Ok, it's official, all the ASOIAF characters are sociopaths :smoking:

[AvengingAryaFan]

[quote name='Fat Belwas' post='1603190' date='Nov 29 2008, 14.18']From Wikipedia, the requirements to be labeled a sociopath:
Does Arya qualify?[/quote]
Anybody who says they can define sociopath as somebody about whom at least 3 of a list of 7 things is true is totally full of baloney. Sheesh. This is why Wikipedia is great, but not perfect ... anybody can say anything they want on there.

If you are actually interested in the question, rather than just a glib answer, I will grant you that Arya has many characteristics consistent with sociopathic behavior. However, sociopathy, like criminal behavior, is very much a matter of [i]intent[/i].

If you read some analyses of sociopathy that are a little more serious than multiple-choice personality tests, you'll see that characteristics of sociopaths include things like:
**Callousness/Lack of Empathy - Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only [u]contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them[/u].
**Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature - Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
**Manipulative and Conning - They never recognize the rights of others and see their [u]self-serving behaviors[/u] as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are [u]covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used[/u]. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

If you actually think about what people say about sociopaths, you'll see that the common thread is self gratification at the expense of everybody else; a disregard for the feelings and values of others. That just doesn't describe Arya at all; in fact, she's quite opposite. She behaves altruistically far more than most, compassionate when others are callous, etc.

George has set up Arya's circumstances such that she'd be a damned fool, and a dead or captured damned fool, if she didn't engage in many behaviors which, [i]in normal circumstances[/i], are associated with sociopaths: lying, changing identities, etc. So if you want to say "aha, see, you're a sociopath," you can make an argument ... but it's a shallow, specious argument that doesn't take into account the essentially [i]anti-other[/i] nature of sociopaths (not to be confused with anti-Other), nor the distorting effects of Arya's need to survive in a very atypical environment.

Oh, and one other critical thing: in a world like ours, where you have laws and police that will in most instances protect you, killing really is unconscionable. But it is not in Westeros. It is mundane, and it is essential for survival in many instances. Westeros is not effectively a land of laws, and, witness Gregor's rampage, there is little or no protection for the innocent and helpless. The gods help you if you can't help yourself.

[Lucky Pierre]

Since this thread really has nothing to do with the OP anymore I'm done; Ran-I will PM or have others PM you directly.

Have fun you guys! And remember-this is FUN!

;)

:cheers:

[AvengingAryaFan]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1603191' date='Nov 29 2008, 14.23']We’ve had this exact conversation many times before, including the Wikipedia quotation.

It is my belief that GRRM took this, or some other available clichéd description of a sociopath, and modelled Arya on it. It fits [i]too[/i] well, down to the “crooked stitches” that are the first thing we learn about her.[/quote]
Just so.

And after modeling her on it, he mocked the definition by making Arya precisely opposite to sociopathic in the most important ways: she is reasonably altruistic, has empathy for others, is kind to others, and is strongly motivated by a desire for justice for others. [i]Sociopaths do not care about others[/i] to any significant degree.

Arya is a literary creation that highlights the stupidity of such a simplistic definition of sociopath.

[AvengingAryaFan]

[quote name='switters' post='1603186' date='Nov 29 2008, 14.12']Yep. This is exactly what a "master author" like GRRM would do. Unresolved character/plot points are a big part of what makes books fun to write, read, and discuss.

I believe Syrio is DEAD. If so, his sacrifice is much more meaningful and emotionally provacative. His death would also fit nicely within the "mentor's self-sacrifice" archetype (Gandalf, Obi-Wan, Moiraine, etc.).[/quote]
Unresolved character/plot points, or red herrings that get people worked up for nothing, undeniably provide a basis for analysis and argument. And authors do it, no question. But you seem to be implying that it's a good thing.

There's a whole topic (or maybe two) devoted to red herrings. The more you consider the examples that people think are red herrings, the more you see that very few of them actually qualify. George seems to use them, if at all, quite sparingly, which in my opinion is one of the ways in which he is a superior author (clearly, YMMV).

It's EASY to leave unresolved plot points. It's HARD to tie everything up so there are no wasted scenes and dead-end events.

You have a good point about Syrio fitting the sacrificing mentor trope, except for one thing: to get the most mileage out of it, we need to actually see Syrio die, the way we saw Robb die. GRRM sure isn't sparing us the gore, so if we're to get the full impact of Syrio's supposed sacrifice, the best thing is to show or at least confirm his heroic death. So why didn't he?

And look -- this is on topic!

[SomethingFunny]

Whew, boy... didn't know what I'd kick loose by starting this thread.

It's gone from a discussion of Syrio's possible fate (and his not being mentioned after that but for Cersei's statement and Arya's memories) to many pages of discussing the pros and cons of armour and speed in ASOIAF-fighting to trying to find a definite verdict on whether Arya's a sociopath or not. Anything I've missed?

Just for the record, I still think it's [i]possible[/i] that Syrio survived the encounter with Trant, without stretching the fabric of the narrative much (and despite of the arguments brought forth about the hopelessness of his situation). I'm getting second thoughts about it being [i]plausible[/i] in terms of the story though.

I could only possibly imagine him turning up again in Braavos, which is where he likely would have fled if he had survived. It's also conveniently where Arya is right now, so a reunion would be possible. I can't imagine him popping up anywhere else in a way that would be satisfying - storywise . The problem is just that this kind of reappearance doesn't seem to be in keeping with Arya's storyline so far.

I'm spot on with Errant Bard and Happy Ent that she is something like a sociapath, not to start with, but because of the evolution she's undergone. She's one of my favorites, and I understand her, but she is pretty similar to a child soldier by now. I think that Arya is further going down that path, otherwise the "blood child" prophecy would make no sense. I mean, that whole "stench of death clinging to her" thing is really a bit too melodramatic to then just have her end up the tomboy princess with ruffled hair... And, yes, that's a cliché I'd be very happy to see Martin break with.

Anyway, I'm thinking an encounter with Syrio would spoil the narrative we've seen set up for Arya. One of the defining features of her evolution is losing everyone that protected her and close to everyone she cared about, so that she in the end resolved to rely only on herself. Lone wolf and so on. Not only would a reunion with Syrio break that dynamic, but he would quite likely try to save her from what she has become. He'd be likely to succeed too, because Arya [i]worships[/i] the man.

That cinches it for me, really: [i]Yes, I believe now, that Syrio is actually dead[/i], because a reappearance would be totally out of tune with Arya's storyline. I still hope we'll hear something about him from the sealord of Braavos or his First Sword, though.


And thanks to Ran and BLP for trying to authoritatively (as it were) settle the matter. That would really put my mind at rest.

Apart from that, I can only echo BLP's post above: It's supposed to be fun! There's no reason whatsoever to get personal (and there's been a lot of getting personal on the last pages).

edit:
Two more posts got in - I'm referring to the post now thee spots above this one.

[A wilding]

[quote name='AvengingAryaFan' post='1603222' date='Nov 29 2008, 22.15']George has set up Arya's circumstances such that she'd be a damned fool, and a dead or captured damned fool, if she didn't engage in many behaviors which, [i]in normal circumstances[/i], are associated with sociopaths: lying, changing identities, etc. So if you want to say "aha, see, you're a sociopath," you can make an argument ... but it's a shallow, specious argument that doesn't take into account the essentially [i]anti-other[/i] nature of sociopaths (not to be confused with anti-Other), nor the distorting effects of Arya's need to survive in a very atypical environment.[/quote]
I actually mostly agree with this. Arya's environment and circumstances have turned her into what she has become. The questions are: is it healthy for someone her age to have become what she is; and will it be possible for her to discard what she has learned and return to a more normal attitude when and if circumstances permit it? I would say that GRRM intends the thoughtful reader to answer "no" to the first question, without trying to force them to, but YMMV. The second question may get answered in future books.

[Ran]

Well put, wildling.

[Lady Blackfish]

^ Yes, I think that says it all, for me anyway.

[AryaSnow]

[quote name='SomethingFunny' post='1603241' date='Nov 30 2008, 00.02']She's one of my favorites, and I understand her, but she is pretty similar to a child soldier by now.[/quote]
What do you mean with "similar to a child soldier"?
If you mean that she kills people, yes she is. But it really doesn't makes her a sociopath.
If you mean that she kills random innocent people (like child soldiers in Black Diamond) or that the has no morality and no human feeling towards the others... it's absolutely false.

[quote]I think that Arya is further going down that path, otherwise the "blood child" prophecy would make no sense.[/quote]
Maybe you are right, maybe you aren't.
Prophecies not always have the most forseeable meaning. For instance, Bran and Rickon didn't die...

[quote]I mean, that whole "stench of death clinging to her" thing is really a bit too melodramatic to then just have her end up the tomboy princess with ruffled hair... And, yes, that's a clich� I'd be very happy to see Martin break with.[/quote]
There aren't only the two extreme possibilities...

[quote name='A wilding' post='1603245' date='Nov 30 2008, 00.08']The questions are: is it healthy for someone her age to have become what she is;[/quote]
Yes, very "healthy". And she would have been dead otherwise.
Or better: what do you mean with "healthy"?
Good? Yes, it is.
Not psychopathic? Yes it is.
Ordinary? In some way yes, in some way no.

[quote]and will it be possible for her to discard what she has learned and return to a more normal attitude when and if circumstances permit it?[/quote]
What do you mean with "not normal attitude"?
Killing is a normal attitude in Westeros :P

[AvengingAryaFan]

[quote name='A wilding' post='1603245' date='Nov 29 2008, 16.08']I actually mostly agree with this. Arya's environment and circumstances have turned her into what she has become. The questions are: is it healthy for someone her age to have become what she is; and will it be possible for her to discard what she has learned and return to a more normal attitude when and if circumstances permit it? I would say that GRRM intends the thoughtful reader to answer "no" to the first question, without trying to force them to, but YMMV. The second question may get answered in future books.[/quote]
Well received.

However, your post begs the question of WHAT Arya has become. I expect you'd agree with me that she deviates pretty far from the norm in one dimension: she's insensitive to killing and death. The thoughtful reader may well ask whether it's healthy for her to be that way, whether she'll be able to revert to less fatal behavior when it's appropriate. But she's also shown to be unusually good and compassionate, despite tough circumstances, taking the villagers side in seeking justice against Gregor et al., watering the caged men, saving Jaqen/Rorge/Biter, retaining her anger about Mycah and, while being unafraid to kill the deserving, not killing the questionable, such as the Hound. I think a thoughtful reader is likely to think that this equally salient aspect of "who she is" is very healthy, and not something she should jettison later.

So my problem is that you try to label her, and you miss the fact that she's multidimensional, and a study in "stark" contradictions. Similarly, when you suggest the thoughtful reader would likely conclude "the way she is" is unhealthy, your observation is fair, but only in regard to one very discrete aspect of her character.

Finally, GRRM could have created her character to provoke the reader's concerns, with eventual resolution either as E.Bard would prefer, or in some less dystopic manner. To develop this conflict, E.Bard may be right that Arya needs to get darker, because at this point she only kills when it makes sense, and takes no perverse pleasure in it. Therefore, later when killing is not called for, she should not have a drive to kill that she must somehow "overcome;" if it's not called for, she just won't do it.

But GRRM could also (without contradiction) have created Arya to cause the thoughtful reader to consider: what really constitutes goodness and badness? What is sociopathic? When is significant deviancy [u]not[/u] a bad thing?

And those are the questions that I think are interesting. Arya could be the Angel of Death - wholly good, wholly compassionate to the innocent and the weak, but dispensing death as necessary and without compunction.