Syrio Forel =/= Jaquen

[AvengingAryaFan]

Trant was mentioned specifically:

"Finally he drew his sword.

Sansa heard someone gasp. Ser Boros and Ser Meryn moved forward to confront him, but Ser Barristan froze them in place with a look that dripped contempt."

So your last part definitely applies and them some. Not only is Ser Meryn present, and not visibly hobbling about with crutches or an arm in a sling or such, but he's even feeling hale enough to try to take on Barristan the Bold (only to lose his nerve under his withering glare).

This makes a very good point, helping us to understand just what might be meant by claims that Trant is an "adequate" fighter: he and Blount together lost their nerve in the face of a mere glare from an unarmed, partly armored Barristan Selmy. As their Lord Commander for years, Selmy would certainly have known their skill ... or, as his contempt conveyed, their lack of skill. Two armored Kingsguard knights to one old, unarmed knight ... yet his look "drips contempt."

If Selmy thought that two armed and armored knights were no threat to him, why couldn't the First Sword of Braavos have (correctly) concluded that just one of them was not a real danger? Dispatching five guards in a few moments with a wooden stick appears to confirm Forel's reputation, placing him at least close to the skill level of Selmy. Without convincing evidence that Forel is far less skilled than Barristan, Selmy's contempt in the face of two knights seems yet further reason to believe that an unarmed and unarmored Forel could easily manage a single old "adequate" knight.

"Managing" need not involve killing or even seriously injuring Trant; all Syrio needed to do was to put him temporarily out of action. Knocking Trant on his back would be sufficient to permit Syrio to walk away. Or trot. Or dance. Certainly he wouldn't run ... that would be an untruth. We know Syrio wouldn't utter an untruth, even for strategic reasons, because we don't have an example of him misdirecting Arya to make the point that she should watch the movement, rather than listen to the words. Or do we?

This scene of Barristan's ejection from the Kingsguard provides much more support for Syrio being alive than dead.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

"Managing" need not involve killing or even seriously injuring Trant; all Syrio needed to do was to put him temporarily out of action. Knocking Trant on his back would be sufficient to permit Syrio to walk away. Or trot. Or dance.

This continues to ignore the peril that Trant poses to Syrio if left alive and able to yell for reinforcements. And makes Syrio bizarrely merciful toward a man he has obvious contempt for. Did Syrio show the least bit of mercy to those hapless redcloaks? No, he happily butchered them all. So why spare the man who gave the orders, who can call even more redcloaks? Sorry, doesn't make sense.

Certainly he wouldn't run ... that would be an untruth. We know Syrio wouldn't utter an untruth, even for strategic reasons, because we don't have an example of him misdirecting Arya to make the point that she should watch the movement, rather than listen to the words. Or do we?

And if we were to suppose that Syrio was confident that he could beat Trant (which is what your claim means, it wouldn't be a lie to make a point otherwise), what on earth is the point of the lie? Why not tell the truth? "Stay there a moment, girl, after I've killed this fool I 'll escort you to safety". Instead he would be abandoning Arya in a highly dangerous environment for no reason at all. The simple alternative is that he's abandoning her because there is no alternative; he can buy her a little time, but he knows he won't survive for long.

This scene of Barristan's ejection from the Kingsguard provides much more support for Syrio being alive than dead.

Yeah, because Trant had been taking orders from Syrio, living in the same building with him, sharing meals with him, belonged to the same brotherhood with him, for the last 15 years. :rolleyes:

Barristan's power is rather obviously psychological in that scene, and he had plainly declared that he was no threat to Joffrey. Moreover, Barristan is an expert at Westerosi swordplay, and Trant was very much aware of his reputation and prowess, unlike the unknown Syrio.

[Szar]

This makes a very good point, helping us to understand just what might be meant by claims that Trant is an "adequate" fighter: he and Blount together lost their nerve in the face of a mere glare from an unarmed, partly armored Barristan Selmy. As their Lord Commander for years, Selmy would certainly have known their skill ... or, as his contempt conveyed, their lack of skill. Two armored Kingsguard knights to one old, unarmed knight ... yet his look "drips contempt."

... unarmed? He just drew his sword.

Syrio had a wooden stick. Selmy had his sword. There is no comparison.

We also have absolutely no clue whether Syrio is as skilled as Barristan Selmy. The five guards he kills are just that: guards, not trained knights. If they have armor, it's probably a shirt of mail and no more.

There's also no evidence that Selmy would have won a fight against Trant and Blount. He stops them before it comes that far. They know his skill, but that doesn't mean they know how well they would fare against him, two-on-one -- especially since Selmy has just removed all of his armor.

[Serc]

Selmy, from everything we have seen from him, seems to be a rather skillful fighter though. Despite being old, he saved Danaerys from a manticore with fast reaction time, and people have referred to him as being the last good Kingsguard or something to that effect.

And seriously, if you can kill 5 people with a wooden sword in 20 seconds, I would say it doesn't matter WHO those people were, you are rather skillful.

[TrueMetis]

not enough credit is being given to the gaurds they were obviously better trained than you think considering how quickly they slaughter the Stark guards and even if they weren't killing five people especially five armed people is a pretty impressive feat

[Prince Bran]

So after digesting a lot of this, the only way that Syrio is still alive is if the following took place: During the course of his fight with Trant, Syrio somehow knocks him unconscious, and decides not to finish him off. At this point, he would need a disguise to walk from the Keep unmolested. He could take Trant's armor...but guards would know the face of every KG, whereas if he took the armor/clothes of one of the Lannister guardsmen, he might be able to get out without difficulty. Accordingly, clothed as a Lannister guardsman, he somehow escapes the Keep and the city...

It's still pretty sketchy. But it's the least sketchy "this is how Syrio could still be alive" narrative that I'm familiar with. Not that I believe it.

[Ser Lucan]

Martin all but says Syrio is dead. I'm not sure why people just can't accept that...don't decide a conclusion you like and then try to justify it, draw conclusions based on the evidence.

[The Leech Lord]

I fully admit to losing patience with the repetiveness and angriness of the thread and have not read all of it, but here is my opinion. Sorry if someone has repeated it.

First of all, the major problem with this theory is the timeline.

Longwaters, the gaoler, told Jaime than when Yoren took the three out of the black cells, the 'papers were in order.' He uses this to justify going against his own opinion that they should not have been released. This means Stark was still in power at the time, as otherwise the papers wouldn't have been in order and he probably would have taken the opportunity to follow his own opinion. This means that Jaquen was let out of the black cells before Stark is removed from power and thus before the Trant vs. Syrio scene.

As for the results of that scene, there are three possiblilities. 1, Syrio defeats Trant, but leaves him completely alive and uninjured. (Evidence for this been discussed earlier in the thread) Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. 2, Syrio runs. No comment necessary. 3, Trant defeats Syrio, which all evidence points towards. He now has in his power a guy who just killed five of his own guards. WHy would he leave him alive? Trant is not shown as the nicest guy.

As for people who claim Jaquen has no back story, why does he need one? GRRM cannot give us his whole life story, so he has to start somewhere. He's a hired assassin for heaven's sake, what do you think he's doing in the cells?

While its unrelated, I have a bone to pick with the people who claim Jaquen could have got out at any time? What makes you say that? The only magical powers the FM have shown are illusions. How does that help him get out? Just because they are cool assassins does not make them all poweful. This theory also means Jaquen has to willingly let himself nearly burn to death in order to test Arya. What has he seen of Arya so far. A boy who was stupid enough to antagonise Biter and who once gave him some food. Obviously, she needs to be immediately put through the ultimate FM initation test at the risk of his own life. :bang:

PS. I was wondering why everyone seemed so angry while reading this thread. After having reread mine, I see why. :blush:

[AvengingAryaFan]

This continues to ignore the peril that Trant poses to Syrio if left alive and able to yell for reinforcements. And makes Syrio bizarrely merciful toward a man he has obvious contempt for. Did Syrio show the least bit of mercy to those hapless redcloaks? No, he happily butchered them all. So why spare the man who gave the orders, who can call even more redcloaks? Sorry, doesn't make sense.

And if we were to suppose that Syrio was confident that he could beat Trant (which is what your claim means, it wouldn't be a lie to make a point otherwise), what on earth is the point of the lie? Why not tell the truth? "Stay there a moment, girl, after I've killed this fool I 'll escort you to safety". Instead he would be abandoning Arya in a highly dangerous environment for no reason at all. The simple alternative is that he's abandoning her because there is no alternative; he can buy her a little time, but he knows he won't survive for long.

Yeah, because Trant had been taking orders from Syrio, living in the same building with him, sharing meals with him, belonged to the same brotherhood with him, for the last 15 years. :rolleyes:

Barristan's power is rather obviously psychological in that scene, and he had plainly declared that he was no threat to Joffrey. Moreover, Barristan is an expert at Westerosi swordplay, and Trant was very much aware of his reputation and prowess, unlike the unknown Syrio.

Reinforcements were probably pretty busy at the time. I doubt that Trant made allowance for needing more than five gold (not red) cloaks to help him take a 9 year-old girl from her dancing master. In any case, I don't think you really want to shift the argument to a claim that Syrio is dead because Trant was losing, but yelling for help. BTW, although he put them all out of commission, IIRC Syrio didn't kill all the gold cloaks.

Do you deny that Selmy's ability to stop Trant's advance was based on Barristan's belief that he is far more capable than Trant and/or Blount? Even though Selmy was unarmed and unarmored, Trant stopped because he believed that Selmy was still superior to both him and Blount. Selmy's confidence was based on the same belief. Trant's confidence may have been particularly low if he had recently found himself unable to beat even an unarmored old man who had only a wooden stick ...

It would be surprising if an observant former First Sword of Braavos, living in Kings Landing, hadn't checked out the Kingsguard to evaluate their abilities. But even if he didn't know the abilities of Trant in particular, he clearly knows very well how to deal with armored knights. In view of the confidence of the unarmed Selmy, it seems quite reasonable that Forel, though having only a stick, might also be very confident that he could at least survive an encounter with Trant.

Forel's confidence in his skill was greater, but his sacrifice was far less, if he had no expectation of dying. That might disappoint some readers, but at least it obviates a need to explain why, a couple of months after being employed by Ned Stark to teach swordplay to a 9 year-old girl, Forel would be willing to lay down his life merely to give Arya a head start on pursuit which almost certainly would not result in her death in any event. To my knowledge no reasonable explanation for such extraordinary loyalty has ever been proposed.

You ask why Forel might strategically mislead Trant by asserting that "The First Sword of Braavos does not run." At least two possibilities come to mind: first, any time you can give your opponent false expectations, you increase the chances of causing them to make an erroneous assumption; that is what Forel had just demonstrated to Arya. Second, it's common in fighting to attempt to intimidate your opponent, and often the same actions serve to increase one's own courage. Fear cuts deeper than swords. Whether it worked as intended is little evidence of the purpose.

The fact that Forel explicitly demonstrated strategic deception to Arya is evidence that undercuts confidence in the veracity of his statement that he "does not run." It doesn't prove he's lying, by any means; but it weakens any argument that relies on the truth of that statement. Your argument that Syrio is almost certainly dead relies quite heavily on a (misplaced) confidence that he didn't run.

Oh, you also asked why Syrio didn't simply tell Arya to wait while he dispatched Trant. I think the answer is that his confidence was not that he could kill Trant, but that Trant could not kill him. I acknowledge that full armor is very effective defensively. Besides, although he killed a number of gold cloaks without compunction, they had, after all, been ordered to kill him.

Killing the opponent is an effective way to end a swordfight, and Syrio did that to several of the partly-armored gold cloaks. However, Trant's armor would make him difficult to kill during the fight. How would the fight end if the baggy-eyed old Trant couldn't catch Syrio to kill him? The nimble Forel dances away, picks up one of the five swords lying around, and gives Trant enough trouble to wear him out, or cause him to trip over one of the downed gold cloaks. If Trant didn't stay down out of simple exhaustion, Forel could knock him out with a good whack to the head.

Syrio had to run and hide sometime - he couldn't count on killing every Lannister and Baratheon loyalist. That being the case, why kill a Kingsguard, even if he could? So the fact that Syrio didn't kill Trant is no evidence that he didn't beat him.

[AvengingAryaFan]

I fully admit to losing patience with the repetiveness and angriness of the thread and have not read all of it, but here is my opinion. Sorry if someone has repeated it.

The "Syrio is certainly dead" proponents sometimes seem angry at the temerity of we "Syrio could quite reasonably be alive" proponents in disagreeing with them.

As for repetitiveness, actually we are covering new ground: exploring the ramifications of the contempt toward the fully armored Trant and Blount shown by the unarmed and only partly armored Selmy. I contend that it is yet another piece of evidence that cuts in favor of Syrio surviving his encounter with Trant. It adds to the many presented earlier: the success of less armored contestants like Bronn and Oberyn; the fact that Syrio typically relies on speed rather than armor for protection; the fact that Syrio seems to have skills commensurate with a reputation comparable to that of Barristan Selmy; the fact that weapons are available (and Oberyn recovered his once while fighting Gregor); the fact that the unweighted Forel would tire much less quickly than the burdened, baggy-eyed Trant; and the fact that it makes no sense from a realistic character standpoint for the recent hire Syrio to choose to lay down his life merely to give a little head start to a young girl who was in little danger of being killed even if she was captured. That's a lot of evidence supporting the possibility that Syrio is alive, whether FM or not, and justifies looking very carefully for "loopholes" in the apparent jeopardy in which we last see Syrio Forel. Martin has exploited such loopholes many times: e.g., the Hound; Bran & Rickon; and Brienne, Hyle Hunter and Pod. As for Martin "practically saying that Syrio is dead," it's telling that he avoids actually stating it as fact. If Syrio isn't important, why is it worth the trouble to keep deflecting questions about him? I think GRRM doth protest too much in this regard. His refusal to confirm Syrio's death is consistent with the complete absence of any POV evidence in the books for such a death.

...While its unrelated, I have a bone to pick with the people who claim Jaquen could have got out at any time? What makes you say that? The only magical powers the FM have shown are illusions. How does that help him get out? Just because they are cool assassins does not make them all poweful. This theory also means Jaquen has to willingly let himself nearly burn to death in order to test Arya. What has he seen of Arya so far. A boy who was stupid enough to antagonise Biter and who once gave him some food. Obviously, she needs to be immediately put through the ultimate FM initation test at the risk of his own life.

As to that, I once proposed the following: that Syrio replaced Jaqen AFTER Yoren had taken charge of him. That solves the timeline problem, and explains the fear of the other two black cell prisoners toward him. I also surmised that it would make more sense to put himself in Jaqen's place if the shackles were sham, and he was able to get out of them (reasonable, if he put himself there). However, I have discarded the theory for a couple of reasons, including the one you mention: Jaqen wouldn't sit calmly in a furiously burning barn just on a whim to test Arya.

[mormont]

This makes a very good point, helping us to understand just what might be meant by claims that Trant is an "adequate" fighter: he and Blount together lost their nerve in the face of a mere glare from an unarmed, partly armored Barristan Selmy. As their Lord Commander for years, Selmy would certainly have known their skill ... or, as his contempt conveyed, their lack of skill. Two armored Kingsguard knights to one old, unarmed knight ... yet his look "drips contempt."

If Selmy thought that two armed and armored knights were no threat to him, why couldn't the First Sword of Braavos have (correctly) concluded that just one of them was not a real danger?

Begging the question somewhat, no? I cannot see Selmy's look of 'contempt' being because the two of them were no threat to him. Quite the reverse. It appears to me drawn from the fact that despite the fact that he is clearly in no position to be a threat to them, they're still nervous.

At the very least, you must admit that your conclusion about the source of Selmy's 'contempt' is speculative and therefore can't really provide solid support for another speculation.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

I doubt that Trant made allowance for needing more than five gold (not red) cloaks

On a general note, it's a good idea to have a clue what you're talking about before trying to correct other people.

"The red cloaks wore mail shirts over leather and steel caps with lion crests."

"And why is it that Lord Eddard is sending Lannister men in the place of his own? I am wondering."

to help him take a 9 year-old girl from her dancing master. In any case, I don't think you really want to shift the argument to a claim that Syrio is dead because Trant was losing,

We have to constantly shift the argument all over the place, in order to address the endlessly changing stories of the 'Syrio lives!' side. It's not like anyone else is claiming Trant would have been losing, so it's pretty dishonest to imply that...we simply have to address each new excuse for his survival as it is invented.

BTW, although he put them all out of commission, IIRC Syrio didn't kill all the gold cloaks.

Of course not. There were no gold cloaks there. However:

"Five men were down, dead or dying by the time Arya reached the back door that opened on the kitchen."

Even though Selmy was unarmed and unarmored, Trant stopped because he believed that Selmy was still superior to both him and Blount.

How many times do people have to tell you, Barristan wasn't unarmed at that moment?

He drew his sword, everyone gasped, Trant and Blount move forward, he glares at them, says "have no fear, sers, you're king is safe...", then he throws his sword on the floor. Sheesh.

In view of the confidence of the unarmed Selmy, it seems quite reasonable that Forel, though having only a stick, might also be very confident that he could at least survive an encounter with Trant.

Whole sentence based on same faulty premise. Barristan had a steel sword in his hand.

That might disappoint some readers, but at least it obviates a need to explain why, a couple of months after being employed by Ned Stark to teach swordplay to a 9 year-old girl, Forel would be willing to lay down his life merely to give Arya a head start on pursuit which almost certainly would not result in her death in any event. To my knowledge no reasonable explanation for such extraordinary loyalty has ever been proposed.

Ned had agreed to take Syrio back to Winterfell a few days earlier. That changed their relationship a bit, from independent contractor working for money to being a Stark man. If you go back to someone's castle to permanently live under their roof and eat at their table, you owe him more than if you do an odd job for hire.

You ask why Forel might strategically mislead Trant by asserting that "The First Sword of Braavos does not run." At least two possibilities come to mind: first, any time you can give your opponent false expectations, you increase the chances of causing them to make an erroneous assumption; that is what Forel had just demonstrated to Arya.

You're completely ignoring the point. He's throwing Arya to the wind, which is unnecessary if he's going to win. Misleading Trant is pointless if Trant is going to be defeated in a moment.

Second, it's common in fighting to attempt to intimidate your opponent, and often the same actions serve to increase one's own courage.

But this is the exact opposite. By telling Arya to run away he's tacitly admitting that Trant will eventually win. If he had said "stay there while I kill him, then I'll take you to safety" then you might have something about intimidating his opponent. If you mean he's trying to intimidate Arya to increase her courage, how is that worth the risk of sending her off on her own instead of being escorted by a former First Sword of Braavos?

The fact that Forel explicitly demonstrated strategic deception to Arya is evidence that undercuts confidence in the veracity of his statement that he "does not run." It doesn't prove he's lying, by any means; but it weakens any argument that relies on the truth of that statement. Your argument that Syrio is almost certainly dead relies quite heavily on a (misplaced) confidence that he didn't run.

"My words lied. My eyes and arm shouted the truth, but you were not seeing."

In the later case Arya's (and the 'Syrio lives!' crowd's) heart was lying when she thought he could survive the fight (which was why she lingered), but then Trant's insurmountable arms and armour advantage shouted the truth at her. That's what our argument leans heavily on. In this case, the strategic decption you are claiming is incoherent, since it puts Arya in greater danger than if he told her the alleged truth (that he would win).

Oh, you also asked why Syrio didn't simply tell Arya to wait while he dispatched Trant. I think the answer is that his confidence was not that he could kill Trant, but that Trant could not kill him. I acknowledge that full armor is very effective defensively.

So 'stall and run' is the particular variation here, then? But without Syrio being a FM? It's hard to keep track of them all. I suppose that's about the best version of Syrio running, but it craps all over Syrio as a man who abides by his warrior code, agreed to serve the Starks back at Winterfell, and is an old man in a profession that encourages fearlessness about dying by the sword. And it splits the difference between running when Arya shouts at him to run, and fighting to the death...which is a matter of mere seconds. Why not just go with her, then? If he's not going to give the benefit of as long a head start as possible (fighting to the death), why not give her the benefit of a skilled fighter escort? He doesn't give her either benefit this way.

Besides, although he killed a number of gold cloaks without compunction, they had, after all, been ordered to kill him.

Ordered by Trant! Who has exactly the same intention and better equipment to do it with.

And it's red cloaks.

Killing the opponent is an effective way to end a swordfight, and Syrio did that to several of the partly-armored gold cloaks.

Red cloaks.

However, Trant's armor would make him difficult to kill during the fight. How would the fight end if the baggy-eyed old Trant couldn't catch Syrio to kill him? The nimble Forel dances away, picks up one of the five swords lying around, and gives Trant enough trouble to wear him out, or cause him to trip over one of the downed gold cloaks. If Trant didn't stay down out of simple exhaustion, Forel could knock him out with a good whack to the head.

If he was able to do either of those, he would then be able to kill Trant. And it would be idiotic and out of character not to. There's no evidence of Syrio being merciful toward enemies he's contemptuous toward, or for Bravos to be merciful, period.

Syrio had to run and hide sometime - he couldn't count on killing every Lannister and Baratheon loyalist. That being the case, why kill a Kingsguard, even if he could? So the fact that Syrio didn't kill Trant is no evidence that he didn't beat him.

If he's going to run and hide, there's a risk that he'll be found and Trant will identify him as the killer of five red, yes that's red, cloaks. It's called eliminating witnesses, and it's a sound practice for that sort of situation.

[Lamaros]

The people pushing this 'theory' don't seem to be responding well to reasoned criticism, but I'll try an contribute something nonetheless.

There is a general question at play here which I think we can identify as 'Is Syrio Forel alive?' which has then been expanded out into the more general contention that Syrio and Jaquen are the same person.

What is at the root of this contention? A desire for Syrio to live? A desire for Jaquen to have a more detailed story? A desire to assume some significant relationship between Arya and Braavos? A desire for Arya to retain some link to her childhood? For her to have some guardian angel?

Lets ignore all the 'evidence' of Syrio's fight for a second and just consider Syrio Forel as a character. We are reading a book after all and despite the fact that GRRM could easily include a deux ex machina in the final volume that brings every single character back to life or makes any wild theory a correct one the fact remains that there is a consistency in the world of ASoIaF to this point, and a consistency to the writing style of GRRM.

A good question to ask then is, 'What purpose would Syrio Forel being alive serve?'. This is a question that allows us not only to consider Syrio's significance within the world of the novel, but also the world of the reader.

So lets look at from this view for a second. What was Syrio? A friend to Arya. A trainer to Arya. A protector of Arya. Was he anything more than that? Did he have political significance? Did he display any active role in the series outside of his relationship with Arya? I suggest that the answer to these questions is 'no'. Therefore Syrio returning to life would be read as further support of one of these elements.

Does Arya need Syrio to be alive to continue to train her? Obviously not. She still learns from his lessons in her memory all the time, his returning to life would not add anything significant to that relationship, on the contrary, it would likely detract from it.

Does Arya need Syrio to be alive to protect her? Obviously not, Syrio could not not protect her when he was clearly alive, so his returning from death to keep doing so would not make any sense at all. His dying is in fact a final lesson about her not relying on other for protection. It empowers her. His returning to life, or continuing in life as some kind of divine guardian actually destroys this whole element of her character development.

Does Arya need Syrio to be alive to be her friend? This is a difficult one, I would suggest that there is some value in Syrio living as some sort of emotional support for Arya in the future. However this role is also served by Jon, Hot Pie, Gendry, and Nymeria (and even Sandor) in a much more significant way.

Does anyone else in the whole novel care if Syrio is alive or dead? Anyone at all? No.

What does Syrio or Arya or Jaquen gain if Syrio is Jaquen?

Arya, as we have suggested, actually loses a lot. She becomes something of a pawn and he relationship with Syrio and Jaquen is devalued as a result. She loses control over her own life.

Syrio loses everything. Instead of a friendly protector who saved her life and helped prepare her for the future he becomes some unknowable disengenuous powerful figure who merely played out a role that resulted in the death of her father and her abandonment to the world. In effect his character is entirely destroyed at the cost of what? What do we gain from this, a view of the whole events of the novel as being played out at the whims of some nameless figures or gods?

Jaquen gains nothing. Jaquen might have been seen as some sort of divine protector for Arya for a time, but this not the case when we consider him in Oldtown, he is still exactly the same figure.

So what do we ultimatly gain? The destruction of one character, Syrio, the undermining of one whole character arc, being Arya's, and the gain of nothing at all. Ever.

I don't think GRRM is that bad a writer. And I think that the obvious impossibilities of 'making it work' in regard to what we can actually find in the novels makes it clear that GRRM is not that bad a writer and that the theory is not a supportable one.

[Lord O' Bones]

So much well thought out argument.

So much ignorance of the insanity that must be faced.

You are, at this point, arguing against the existence of god to the Vatican.

Good luck. And dog bless.

[Grim Shady]

I believe Syrio is dead. If he isn't, I certanly don't see him and Jaqen being the same person.

Martin gives us a few deaths that he spares us the details of. Maybe it's a kindness, maybe it's just hard to write it out cause they were cool characters. He doesn't give us details of Ned's beheading until later, when someone talks about Ned's body jerking as a way to taunt someone (think it was Sansa being taunted, can't recall). But when it's actually going down he spared us as Yoren spared Arya by having her turn away. When Syrio goes down I see the same thing. We were spared the details of the killing blow just as Arya was as she turned and ran.

Now, speaking of Jaqen. Is there anyone possessing more full blown badassery than this guy? I'm just finishing up my reread of CoK and his ability to kill anyone and his confidence that it can be done makes him look like he's surrounded by helpless children. He even suggests Joffrey as Arya's 3rd without any doubt he could get the little bugger eventually.

Now he reveals to Arya that he has a task to complete when she asks to learn how to do what he does and then admits that she needs to get back to Winterfell and can't go with him right now. So regardless of how he ended up in the black cells, he was a man with a mission. Unless he sold his services to someone else while traveling with Lorch's crew.

The mystery surrounding Jaqen is rich enough to garner a short story collection about his adventures. The more you ask about him, the more questions you'll collect.

[AvengingAryaFan]

On a general note, it's a good idea to have a clue what you're talking about before trying to correct other people.

"The red cloaks wore mail shirts over leather and steel caps with lion crests."

"And why is it that Lord Eddard is sending Lannister men in the place of his own? I am wondering."

I cheerfully acknowledge my error. As you correctly point out, they were Lannister guardsmen. Which means they should have been better trained than the gold cloaks, who are mere city watchmen. Which means Syrio's startlingly quick dispatch of them was very impressive. Which means that Syrio is at least as good as his reputation and former position as First Sword of Braavos suggest.

It's ironic that I thought Syrio dispatched mere city watchmen, because the prowess demonstrated by Syrio is a very powerful argument in favor of his survival. In ASOIAF, at least, it seems that the better fighter, not the better armed and armored fighter, most often wins one-on-one battles (see, e.g., Barristan vs. Mero the Titan's Bastard).

Thank you. This correction of my error throws a little more dirt on the coffin of the contention that Syrio is definitely dead.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

Thank you. This correction of my error throws a little more dirt on the coffin of the contention that Syrio is definitely dead.

Hey, maybe you should try and claim that being wrong about Barristan being unarmed somehow really proves you are right, too.

:rolleyes:

No one has ever claimed that killing those five redcloaks wasn't very impressive. But it doesn't change the fact that Syrio's skin isn't armoured, which is the overwhelming reason that he's dead.

[AvengingAryaFan]

... Whole sentence based on same faulty premise. Barristan had a steel sword in his hand.

Quite right. By the way, I don't make factual errors on purpose, and I'm more than happy to have them corrected.

It's entirely true that Selmy's possession of a sword undercuts my argument, which was based to a significant extent on my incorrect recollection that Selmy was already unarmed. He was merely without helm or breastplate. And, thus partly armored, said (emphasis added): "Have no fear, sers, your king is safe . . . no thanks to you. Even now, I could cut through the five of you as easy as a dagger cuts cheese."

That's an extremely low assessment of their abilities, by a man who unquestionably knows them. Selmy is good, but he's old. Thus, even after your correction, this scene still supports a conclusion that Trant is NOT a very good fighter, which increases the probability of Syrio surviving his encounter with Trant.

...

You're completely ignoring the point. He's throwing Arya to the wind, which is unnecessary if he's going to win. Misleading Trant is pointless if Trant is going to be defeated in a moment. But this is the exact opposite. By telling Arya to run away he's tacitly admitting that Trant will eventually win.

It's true that Syrio would tell Arya to run if: a) Syrio believed he would lose to Trant;

but also if b) he thought time was of the essence for her to escape;

c) he thought there was a risk of more Lannisters arriving while he was busy with Trant;

d) he believed there was no safe place to escort her to;

e) he believed they were in hostile territory in which it would be wiser to split up; and/or

f) he had his own business to tend to after he dealt with Trant, and couldn't remain available to help Arya.

While I grant (a) is perfectly plausible, it isn't more plausible than (b), (-c-), (d), (e) or (f), and it's far less plausible than the possibilities b-f taken together. And I'm sure I overlooked some possibilities.

...

So 'stall and run' is the particular variation here, then? But without Syrio being a FM? It's hard to keep track of them all.

Yes, it would be, because there are MANY alternatives to Syrio being killed by Trant. That's one of the reasons that it seems so hubristic to insist that the peril Syrio is clearly left in can only have one practical outcome.

Ordered by Trant! Who has exactly the same intention and better equipment to do it with.

And it's red cloaks.

Red cloaks.

Yes, I believe you mentioned that before.

If he's going to run and hide, there's a risk that he'll be found and Trant will identify him as the killer of five red, yes that's red, cloaks.

I'm quite sure you mentioned that before ;-)

It might amuse you to know that I once referred to Asha 11 times in a post, and that in each instance I really meant Osha. Replying to that would have worn out your fingers!

[AvengingAryaFan]

Hey, maybe you should try and claim that being wrong about Barristan being unarmed somehow really proves you are right, too.

:rolleyes:

No one has ever claimed that killing those five redcloaks wasn't very impressive. But it doesn't change the fact that Syrio's skin isn't armoured, which is the overwhelming reason that he's dead.

Your primary reliance on the "bare" fact that Syrio's skin is unarmored seems like "thin protection" against the accumulation of many small evidential hints that support the likelihood of Syrio surviving his encounter with Trant.

I grant you that Syrio is left in peril, but GRRM has a screenwriter's penchant for ending a scene with the threat of imminent tragedy. He kills good guys, too, but he usually milks those events ... like having Joffrey force Sansa to look at her father's head mounted on a spike on a wall. That scene underscored Joffrey's brutality, the abuse of Sansa, and the fact that one of the best of the good guys was callously killed.

By making it appear that Syrio must surely be dead, without actually confirming the death, GRRM gets to teach a lesson that good guys can be in real jeopardy, while still keeping his options open if he wants to later reintroduce Syrio (to Arya? In Braavos?). After the Red Wedding, there's no risk that reintroducing Syrio would cause readers to doubt that good guys are in real jeopardy in ASOIAF.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

Your primary reliance on the "bare" fact that Syrio's skin is unarmored seems like "thin protection" against the accumulation of many small evidential hints that support the likelihood of Syrio surviving his encounter with Trant.

These "many small evidential hints" are invariably so weak they don't even come close to adding up to a single half-way convincing hint...that is, when they aren't utterly wrong or based on false information in the first place. If that last bit of silliness that you claimed (killing 5 redcloaks means Syrio is more likely to have survived than if he killed 5 goldcloaks) is the sort of hint you have, it doesn't matter if there are a million of these hints. A million times zero is still zero.