Syrio neither dead nor Jaqen

[Lady Blackfish]

I don't think "cynical" is the right word for Arya. She's desensitized, yes, but she is still a justice-fighter in her own mind. She isn't ignoring any possible dissonance between her methods and her values, if it's there then she [i]can't[/i] see it.

[AryaSnow]

[quote name='dragonslayer' post='1603606' date='Nov 30 2008, 13.30']The problem I have with badasses with a heart of gold in general is that they marry both a highly cynical attitude (it takes a wolf to catch a wolf) with uncycnical beliefs (justice, hope). That a person is capable of a high degree of violence and a less than stellar regard for human life is able to turn it off like a tap. While all of Arya kills except for the singer may be justifed, expecting that after all this she can just go back to being the person she was, only with an edge or be a warrior woman in a bikini, is imho wrong.[/quote]
Also Jon and many other warriors are "badasses with a heart of gold". Do you have the same problems with them too?


[quote name='Ran' post='1603611' date='Nov 30 2008, 13.42']I said she's on her way. I didn't say she is. Maybe something will shake her off that path, but she [i]is[/i] on that path at the moment.[/quote]
Ok.

[quote]It's [i]in the text[/i] that it's especially aberrant for a woman to become a Faceless Man. In the setting, according to GRRM, this is especially aberrant. You can go argue with George about it.[/quote]
Yes, she's [i]unusual[/i]. All we know that she's unusual. She's a wannabe warrior girl. It's really unusual in a medieval society.
But "unsual" doesn't mean neither "bad" nor "sociopath". If you wanted to state with this quote about women that she's a sociopath, this is sexism. If you didn't, ok.

[quote name='Lady Blackfish']I don't think "cynical" is the right word for Arya. She's desensitized, yes, but she is still a justice-fighter in her own mind. She isn't ignoring any possible dissonance between her methods and her values, if it's there then she can't see it.[/quote]
You're absolutely right.
Now she isn't cynical. In the future? We will see.

[Lady Blackfish]

I don't think Arya will be turning cynical either. There's that quote by Jaime Lannister where he says that there's three kinds of people: those who fight problems, those who laugh at problems, and those who go away inside and pretend to not see problems. Arya is absolutely of the first kind, I think. She may evade and shuffle her list around but the fact that she keeps that list means she intends to go back for them all. I think the character of Arya will live and die by this -- I don't mean death literally, though of course everyone dies.

Her mother (almost) never ever "went away inside", and on the face of it you might say that is the essence of bravery. But it did warp her, she became very desensitized, and to the extent that her state now is a reflection of her last waking moments, it warped her into a very undesirable thing. Yes there was a lot of trauma in that moment, but then Arya's had her share of atrocity and loss too and at such a young age. The way I see it she's losing things to live for but can't see what is happening to her because of her age, and her anger is keeping her alive. But it has destructive potential all at the same time.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Tyrion Hill' post='1603568' date='Nov 30 2008, 12.24']The statements “people are shaped by their environment” and "people are shaped by the characteristics of their house" are not equivalent:[/quote]

Of course not, apologies for being less than clear. “People are shaped by the characteristics of their house” is the Westeros Standard Model for why people come out as they are. “People are shaped by their environment” is the Social Science Standard Model (the axiom of modernism) for why people turn out as they are. The models obviously completely disagree. One is an extreme nurture position, the other an extreme nature position.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1603624' date='Nov 30 2008, 14.11']I don't think Arya will be turning cynical either. There's that quote by Jaime Lannister where he says that there's three kinds of people: those who fight problems, those who laugh at problems, and those who go away inside and pretend to not see problems. Arya is absolutely of the first kind, I think. She may evade and shuffle her list around but the fact that she keeps that list means she intends to go back for them all.[/quote]Yet, she left out Sandor's name when she was traveling with him. I take it to mean that her list is an expression of her anger, and is largely an intellectual thing to sustain her, but it does not drive her. I think that in a way, the names on the list will in the end bear no relevance to the human beings really using these names. The real kills will be then made depending on circumstances, like for Dareon.

[shadowbinding shoe]

[quote name='AryaSnow' post='1603565' date='Nov 30 2008, 13.18']1) This is a [i]synthetic[/i] view. I wasn't interested in describing all in detail.
2) Different trials. And I think Arya behaved incredibly well under her trials.[/quote]

Synthetic as in bad? A whole different story, but the comparison between Becky Sharp and Amelia Sedley in Vanity fair is a similar example of this showing through contrasts.

As to #2 I don't disagree. Just fearful of what's to become of her.

[quote]I quite agree.
I can disagree a bit with the statement that "Sansa is a peacemaker". She isn't exactly like this. she doesn't want to kill people by her own hands, to beat them and to fight, because she is a typical medieval lady. It's not her office. But she has often wished the death of her enemies and she has wanted some male warrior to kill them. She expresses her anger in other ways than drawing a sword.
And in her quarrels with Arya sometimes she was less "peacemaker" than her sister.
Anyway...[/quote]

Yes it was a bit oversimplifying.


[quote]Yes, Sansa is more quiet. But in my opinion it doesn't mean that she's better. They have different personalities, that's all. Sansa has always been more quiet. And I like Arya's personality more, this is a matter of personal preferences.[/quote]

Quiet? She's a vivacious court lady that is the center of attention and directs the going on in her circle in the first book and to a lesser degree in later books as far as she's allowed. And as I said I liked Arya better in the first books. I still say that Arya changed much more drastically than Sansa has. Her development since she left the Hound in particular.

[quote]About the wisdom, Arya simply has a different kind of intelligence. Her main defect is her impulsiveness.[/quote]

Where did this come from? I never talked about intelligences. I was talking about Arya letting the world affect her more deeply emotionally than her sister does and therefore more opened to be hurt and twisted by it.

[quote]All this doesn't entail she's a sociopath.[/quote]

I really don't know if we should call what we're talking about sociopathy. Seems to me like someone who is naturally inclined to it like Joffrey is not the same as someone who is forced through circumstance to something a bit similar as in the child soldiers.

[Lady Blackfish]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1603634' date='Nov 30 2008, 08.26']Yet, she left out Sandor's name when she was traveling with him. I take it to mean that her list is an expression of her anger, and is largely an intellectual thing to sustain her, but it does not drive her. I think that in a way, the names on the list will in the end bear no relevance to the human beings really using these names. The real kills will be then made depending on circumstances, like for Dareon.[/quote]
I don't think anger has wholly consumed her at this point, for what it's worth. I'm trying to not rehash what's already been covered in this rather immense thread, so point me in the right direction if I begin to do so. I don't think her actions will match her intentions necessarily, her list may be nothing more than a justification, of sorts -- but it isn't the same as lying to one's self or rationalizing. She doesn't have the moral sophistication to discern certain things about herself (because of her age, not because she is morally underdeveloped for her age).

I don't know if I'm articulating well or even if its relevant, but what I mean is this: at certain ages people grasp morality differently, ie not getting into trouble, not being punished (ie by losing things you don't want to lose), etc. Arya, though she is quite fixated around the idea of justice, I think it's fair to say, is yet not morally sophisticated enough. I'm not sure it makes to me sense to separate her emotions from her philosophies/moralities, babies are creatures of emotions while adults are morally mature, so there has to be a transition somewhere. I think her intent to be just and moral can be sincere while her actions yet betray different deeper motivations, she can't monitor herself. I'm really not well educated in this stuff though, moral development, and I think I'm getting lost anyway, so can I just ask you what it is you think does drive Arya?

[AryaSnow]

[quote]That it is something most would do to survive doesn't make them any less anormal when they persist in a normal environment.[/quote]
But Arya hasn't been in a normal situation since the end of AGOT.

[quote]I don't think Happy Ent really cares about saying Arya is mentally Ill or not, here, he's saying that she has an extraordinary personality (ie out of the ordinary) that combined with what she went through, fits the description of sociopathy given above. Either way, you are both saying the same thing: she is out of the ordinary, it has been brought forth somewhat by her ordeal but was there at the beginning, and it seems we even all agree about what she is, only calling it with different names.[/quote]
Of course, she's not ordinary, but neither a sociopath.
Are we only calling the same thing with different names? Hmmm, I don't know...
But anyway I think that "sociopath" isn't the right word.

[quote]Powerful argumentation, where did you show that, I'm afraid I missed it. there is nothing to interpret in the list, HE said he didn't try to make the list fit what sociopathy really is, he said he just saw the similarity between it and Arya, while specifying that it didn't matter if that wasn't describing a real mental disorder. I think that he meant that in a sense that list describes an archetype that Arya totally fits.[/quote]
I've undestrood that he wanted to insinuate that Arya is probably a sociopath because she fits this list.

[quote]Since when can you read GRRM's mind? Or are you GRRM? Or do you mean you only think he meant to do that, but cannot find a definitive argument that cannot be interpreted to demonstrate Arya's descent into dark territory?[/quote]
No, I'm not GRRM. Neither he is GRRM. These are our opinions, of course.
And I think that Arya is descending in a dark territory. What I state is: [i]now she's still good, even if darker[/i].

[quote name='shadowbinding shoe']Quiet? She's a vivacious court lady that is the center of attention and directs the going on in her circle in the first book and to a lesser degree in later books as far as she's allowed. And as I said I liked Arya better in the first books. I still say that Arya changed much more drastically than Sansa has. Her development since she left the Hound in particular.[/quote]
In my opinion she's a pretty quiet girl. Being "a court lady etc etc" doesn't exclude this. We probably have a different opinion of what "tranquillity" is.
I don't know who changed more drastically. I'm not very interested in this. I'm only saying that I like and admire Arya both in the beginning and now.

[quote]Where did this come from? I never talked about intelligences.[/quote]
Hmmm.... what does "character-wise" mean? :P

[quote]I was talking about Arya letting the world affect her more deeply emotionally than her sister does and therefore more opened to be hurt and twisted by it.[/quote]
I don't know.
But surely, in any case, even if they suffered both, the world Arya has seen is pretty different from Sansa's experiences. So I don't know if it's fair to make comparisons...

[quote]I really don't know if we should call what we're talking about sociopathy. Seems to me like someone who is naturally inclined to it like Joffrey is not the same as someone who is forced through circumstance to something a bit similar as in the child soldiers.[/quote]
That's sure: there is a [i]huge[/i] difference.
But between Arya and Joffrey there is a huge difference not only for this reason.

[shadowbinding shoe]

[quote name='AryaSnow' post='1603653' date='Nov 30 2008, 16.08']Hmmm.... what does "character-wise" mean? :P[/quote]

It meant regarding her character, or, on the subject of character. Figure of speech.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1603652' date='Nov 30 2008, 15.05']I think her intent to be just and moral can be sincere while her actions yet betray different deeper motivations, she can't monitor herself. I'm really not well educated in this stuff though, moral development, and I think I'm getting lost anyway, so can I just ask you what it is you think does drive Arya?[/quote]I'm not educated in psychology either (and I'm not sure real psychology applies to fictional characters) but to me, what drives Arya is a desire for security first and then for power. but the reason isn't something focused, it may be represented by some names, but in my opinion, these have as much value as saying "Lannisters" or "Freys", they are an abstract representation on which she could focus, not something real, if you see what I mean. Her drive for power, although without real target at the moment, is on the other hand fueled by her experiences as a powerless girl, and as such, by the representation of her trials that is her list.

I'm not clear, I mean, she doesn't want to kill those character, truly, she wants what they provoked to have never happened, and to have enough power to protect herself and punish the guilty .

Just my interpretation, of course, but it is backed up by how I see her interactions with Sandor: Sandor, the concept used to focus herself, could not withstand the knowledge of Sandor, the man, and vanished of her list. She herself didn't know why, lost that she is in her justifications.


[quote name='AryaSnow' post='1603653' date='Nov 30 2008, 15.08']But Arya hasn't been in a normal situation since the end of AGOT.[/quote]One year selling seafood, and interacting with normal people in Braavos isn't normal? What's normal to you?

[quote]Of course, she's not ordinary, but neither a sociopath.
Are we only calling the same thing with different names? Hmmm, I don't know...
But anyway I think that "sociopath" isn't the right word.[/quote]Let's say she is a smurf then, and define that by the proclivity to kill without compunction, lie, hide her identity, not have emotions towards death, pursue assassin studies and note that it is a slippery path and that it's easy and probable when on that path to go from self-righteous and justified to murdering villain. Without judging if that makes her good or bad.


[quote]I've undestrood that he wanted to insinuate that Arya is probably a sociopath because she fits this list.[/quote]Well, I wouldn't want to contradict what you understood from sentences where the opposite is specifically said.

[AryaSnow]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1603686' date='Nov 30 2008, 15.47']One year selling seafood, and interacting with normal people in Braavos isn't normal? What's normal to you?[/quote]
Being trained to become a FM isn't "normal", is it?
It's a [i]special[/i] condition. She changed her identity because this training requires it.

[quote]Let's say she is a smurf then, and define that by the proclivity to kill without compunction, lie, hide her identity, not have emotions towards death, pursue assassin studies and note that it is a slippery path and that it's easy and probable when on that path to go from self-righteous and justified to murdering villain. Without judging if that makes her good or bad.[/quote]
Well...
1 She has often hidden her identity (for particular reasons)
2 She has often lied (for particular reasons)
3 She kills without many problems, when she thinks it's just or necessary.
4 She isn't shocked by seeing dead or dying people.
5 She is training to become a FM
This is the definition of "smurf".
She's a smurf, ok :P

Among all the smurf traits, the only one that per se puts her on a slippery path is the 5th. So I agree that she's on a slippery path, for [i]this[/i] reason.
It seems to me that being a murdering villain is morally bad by default... But I don't know if it's true the contrary... I don't know if all the amoral characters could be considered "villain characters". I don't know if to consider Bronn as a villain, for instance.
And, obviously, in my opinion the only being on a slippery path doesn't make her bad.

[quote]Well, I wouldn't want to contradict what you understood from sentences where the opposite is specifically said.[/quote]
Well, his words were...
[i]I have no opinion on what are sociopath traits, or what the concept should mean. My claim is that Arya is modelled on well-known clichés of sociopathy as handed down to us through popular media such as serial killer movies and the list presented at Wikipedia.[/i]
I agree that Arya is fit to this list.
BUT
- I don't think that the list coincides with the "well-known sociopath clichè". It gives really a [i]too wide[/i] definition. It includes [i]lots[/i] of people who are very far from the "well-known clichés of sociopathy".
- I agree that serial killers coincide enough with the "well-known clichés of sociopathy", but they really don't coincide with the list. To be more precise: serial killers are fit to the list, but the list includes a much wider range of people, who aren't fit to the "well-known clichés of sociopathy".
So---->The list and the serial killer clichè are two different things.
Arya is fit to the list, but not to the serial killer clichè.
If the "well-known sociopath clichè" is the serial killer clichè, Arya isn't fit to it.
If the "well-known sociopath clichè" is the list, Arya is. But the list really doesn't seems to me a correct definition of the ""well-known sociopath clichè.

...

Have I been clear? :P

Another thing...
[quote]Powerful argumentation, where did you show that, I'm afraid I missed it.[/quote]
I forgot to show you the post.
[url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=32010&view=findpost&p=1603214"]Here[/url]

[Lord Renly]

Not only is it false to call Arya a loner, it's also false to say she "doesn't persist." The only thing she doesn't "persist" at is the needlework she hates. I guess Samwell Tarly is not persistent and irresponsible (another "sociopath" trait), because he doesn't persist at becoming a manly man the way his father and society expect him to. She persists at her lessons with Syrio. She doesn't mind learnng to run a house. She has the self-discipline required to manage as [i]Roose Bolton's[/i] cupbearer. She persists, bullheadedly, at joining the House of Black and White.

With regard to what drives Arya, I think it's simple and appropriately childish: the desire to go home and have a pack. This persists through the beginning of AFfC, and perhaps even afterwards. She sticks to the FMs because she's mostly given up hope of going home, but not completely. In her final AFfC chapter she thinks about how she was planning to ask Dareon to take her to Eastwatch with him.

On the issue of Arya's future, GRRM has a lot of work to do if he wants to make Arya a well-written assassin. As it stands, she only kills if there is a threat to her or if her victim has done something she and/or her people find heinous.

An assassin has to kill perfect strangers, perhaps not knowing if they've committed any acts she'd considered heinous, perhaps not knowing who wants them killed, or why. We have never seen that level of impersonality from Arya. Even her most recent and most coldblooded killing was against someone who violated the laws of her homeland, and [i]even in her "Cat" identity[/i] she is angry at him for that. To bring her to the level where the Faceless Men can point her at someone and she'll serenely kill them, like Jaqen does, will take some work on GRRM's part. I don't agree that there's necessarily a slippery slope between kills with a personal element and killing in a purely business-like fashion, with no personal element, as an assassin.

In addition, Arya didn't join the House of Black and White because she had some desire to become an assassin. She went to them because of their connection to Jaqen, and basically imprinted on them like a gosling. She'd lost all her family and didn't want a substitute family or substitute life like the kindly old man was offering her. She wanted her old life, and since she couldn't do that, she wanted to metaphorically stick her head under the blankets and stay in a place that had become somewhat familiar and was connected to someone she knew in the past. So it's not like she has some sort of strong commitment to the idea of being an assassin.

I don't think it will be interesting if she becomes an assassin. Arya is interesting because of her personality and her connections to people in Westeros. A Faceless Man has to put such connections aside and develop an elastic personality. The Many-faced God takes [i]everything[/i] from his servants, remember, thoughts and feelings included, and the one FM we know does not display any emotional connection to his pre-FM life. If Arya does this I'll probably stop caring what happens to her. The journey to Faceless Womanhood might be interesting, but then again it might not be. As of now, we don't have any characters with connections to Westeros in Braavos. So Arya will be surrounded by characters most readers have no particular attachment to. That doesn't make for an interesting storyline in my opinion. This would be a good reason to bring Jaqen or even Syrio back, actually. If Arya is to stay in Braavos, it'll make her storyline better if she interacts with others we know. (See! It's on topic!)

On a more subjective note, I don't find sympathetic villains all that interesting. Sympathetic [i]antagonists[/i], yes, but not villains. My definition of a "villain" is someone who either does not care about right or wrong, or has a definition of right and wrong completely alien to most people's. That's fairly predictable. And it doesn't make it more interesting to me if the villain has suffered hard knocks. I find it more interesting to watch someone struggle to do right and fail, or succeed but have a controversial definition of "right," or be torn between right and wrong, or be in a situation where it is difficult to distinguish the two. So I don't think there's any need for GRRM to make her a villain to keep her and her story interesting.

[Tyrion Hill]

[quote name='Lord Renly' post='1603820' date='Nov 30 2008, 19.42']it's also false to say she "doesn't persist."[/quote]
Of course it's false, but clearly someone missed Septa Mordane's PoV in AGOT... :rolleyes:

[Guest Other-in-law]

I don't know how anyone could consider Arya's killing of the guard at Harrenhal to be anything other than an utterly cold-blooded murder. Yes, he represented an abstract threat because of his job, but in his person he was like an innocent lamb bending down to it's slaughter. He wasn't menacing her with a weapon, [i]he trusted her[/i]. The fact that his death was in her interests does nothing to change the fact that her behaviour there was like that of an unfeeling assassin.

Nor does that (or many of her other deeds) qualify as a "good". Necessary evil? Sure. But not good. No more than contemplating the murder of her friends is good.

(I'm not even all that interested in the massive Arya threadjack, but some of the fanboyism is out of control.)

[Tyrion Hill]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1604013' date='Dec 1 2008, 00.34']I don't know how anyone could consider Arya's killing of the guard at Harrenhal to be anything other than an utterly cold-blooded murder. Yes, he represented an abstract threat because of his job, but in his person he was like an innocent lamb bending down to it's slaughter. He wasn't menacing her with a weapon, [i]he trusted her[/i]. The fact that his death was in her interests does nothing to change the fact that her behaviour there was like that of an unfeeling assassin.

Nor does that (or many of her other deeds) qualify as a "good". Necessary evil? Sure. But not good. No more than contemplating the murder of her friends is good.

(I'm not even all that interested in the massive Arya threadjack, but some of the fanboyism is out of control.)[/quote]
Nice avatar. :smoking:

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Tyrion Hill' post='1604021' date='Nov 30 2008, 18.43']Nice avatar. :smoking:[/quote]
Do you have a point? If not why quote my entire post?

[AryaSnow]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1604013' date='Dec 1 2008, 00.34']I don't know how anyone could consider Arya's killing of the guard at Harrenhal to be anything other than an utterly cold-blooded murder. Yes, he represented an abstract threat because of his job, but in his person he was like an innocent lamb bending down to it's slaughter. He wasn't menacing her with a weapon, [i]he trusted her[/i]. The fact that his death was in her interests does nothing to change the fact that her behaviour there was like that of an unfeeling assassin.[/quote]
[i]Abstract[/i] threat? It seems to me a very [i]concrete[/i] threat.
If she kills the guard--->she can escape
If she doesn't kill him--->she will fall in Bloody Mummers hands.
There is nothing abstract in this situation.
Innocent lamb? He was a soldier and he was armed. He was doing a job [i]hostile to her survival[/i]. Yes, it's not his fault, he didn't [i]deserve[/i] to die. But he surely isn't innocent. He trusted her because he didn't know that she wanted to escaped. If she had tried to escape without killing him and he had known that, he would have killed her (directly or bringing her to Roose Bolton, who probably would have killed her in a much horrible way). I'm not saying it was his fault. He could't disobey to Roose Bolton, he would probably have been senteced to death if he hadn't done his job. But not even it was Arya's fault if she was in this dangerous situation. Nobody of them two deserved to die, each one had the right to kill the other to survive.
Simply... in this situation the stronger, the more clever and the more lucky (why not?) wins. That's all. Arya can justly enjoy her victory. If he trusted her, worse for him and better for Arya: if he hadn't done it, the dead one would have been her.
It's like a battle between two soldiers who are forced to fight.
And, in general, all the warrior characters kill people to not be killed, even if the victims aren't guilty. If you condemn Arya, you should condemn them too. And all the preachings about the "honourable fight, not a cold blooded and disloyal murder" are only beautiful and empty words, when you are a little girl who hasn't chosen to find herself in this horrible situation, and now you have to survive. Moreover, I really doubt that all the poor paesants (forced to fight, without a decent train, with crummy weapons) are particulary glad to the noble knights (with costly armour, looking for glory) to have killed them in an "honourable" way.

[quote]Nor does that (or many of her other deeds) qualify as a "good". Necessary evil? Sure. But not good. No more than contemplating the murder of her friends is good.[/quote]
The killing itself isn't "morally good", but not even bad. It was a choice between two lifes and I don't understand why Arya should have chosen to die (or/and to go towards some other horrible fate, like being raped or tortured) instead of killing him. It's not a moral merit, but it's neither a wrong act. It's just survival instinct, that everyone has the right to follow.
The action is very good because it shows that she's a very clever and strong girl. All these are good things.

Everybody is free to [i]contemplate[/i] what he wants.
And the contemplation is an understandable expression of the survival instinct too. When you really feel in jeopardy, it isn't so strange to have for a little while an extreme thought.

[quote](I'm not even all that interested in the massive Arya threadjack, but some of the fanboyism is out of control.)[/quote]
I haven't any "fanboyism out of control". All my arguements are rational and are concordant to a much more general view of the life, the world and the morals.
If you think I assert foolish things because of a "fanboysm out of control", you are welcome to argue against my statements and to enlighten me.

[Child of the Forest]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1604013' date='Nov 30 2008, 18.34']I don't know how anyone could consider Arya's killing of the guard at Harrenhal to be anything other than an utterly cold-blooded murder. Yes, he represented an abstract threat because of his job, but in his person he was like an innocent lamb bending down to it's slaughter. He wasn't menacing her with a weapon, [i]he trusted her[/i]. The fact that his death was in her interests does nothing to change the fact that her behaviour there was like that of an unfeeling assassin.

Nor does that (or many of her other deeds) qualify as a "good". Necessary evil? Sure. But not good. No more than contemplating the murder of her friends is good.

(I'm not even all that interested in the massive Arya threadjack, but some of the fanboyism is out of control.)[/quote]

It was simply the killing of an enemy soldier. Kill or be killed. No more, no less. Whether or not she used deception (acting like a harmless girl to gain the element of surprise). Only murder if you are a pacifist.

And no I'm not an Arya "fanboy" who thinks she can do no wrong, though she's one of my favorite characters so far. Indeed there *are* no important characters who have done no wrong.

-Child of the Forest

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='AryaSnow' post='1604065' date='Nov 30 2008, 19.47'][i]Abstract[/i] threat? It seems to me a very [i]concrete[/i] threat.
If she kills the guard--->she can escape
If she doesn't kill him--->she will fall in Bloody Mummers hands.
There is nothing abstract in this situation.
Innocent lamb? He was a soldier and he was armed. He was doing a job [i]hostile to her survival[/i].[/quote]
He's an abstract threat in that he [i]intends[/i] no harm to her, is not even aware that she is in any danger (he's not privy to his lord's plans). He wouldn't have considered himself her enemy, and is so only by virtue of a situation that he knows nothing about. That's pretty much the definition of innocence: no malicious intent or plans or acts. As far as he was aware, they were on the same side.

It's curious how readily you dismiss his right to life, and condone his throat being slit through sheer treachery. Her potential peril outweighs his life, and his murder is "not even bad". It's a bit creepy, to be honest. I don't think you can duck the fanboyism label when you're willing to condone the treacherous murder of unsuspecting guards simply and even call it good, as long as it's done by a character you like.
[quote]It's like a battle between two soldiers who are forced to fight.[/quote]
Such a grotesque mischaracterisation it's not even funny. I don't think I'll be responding to you in the future, considering the nature of your aguments so far.

[Child of the Forest]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1604139' date='Nov 30 2008, 21.43']He's an abstract threat in that he [i]intends[/i] no harm to her, is not even aware that she is in any danger (he's not privy to his lord's plans). He wouldn't have considered himself her enemy, and is so only by virtue of a situation that he knows nothing about. That's pretty much the definition of innocence: no malicious intent or plans or acts. As far as he was aware, they were on the same side.[/quote]

And yet Arya knew that a servant would not be allowed out the door unchallenged. Both she and the guard were perfectly aware that among the servants were remnants of those who served previous masters of the castle and may not be counted as loyal so much as under control by threat of force. As I said in a previous post, he was simply an enemy soldier to be disposed of, from her perspective, and he should have known that a random servant in the castle was not necessarily an ally.

-Child of the Forest