The appealing nature of all Arya chapters

[Free Northman]

I don't mean to offend, but I have to say that it is pointless arguing with people who believe the Direwolves weren't supernaturally provided to the Starks, that Sansa didn't betray Ned (albeit without foreseeing the consequences), that the Old gods don't exist as some kind of supernatural force, and that the antler in the dead Direwolf mother wasn't ABSOLUTELY prophetic.

Anyway, each to his own. Might I recommend that you actually read a series called A Song of Ice and Fire at some point in the future. You might enjoy it.

[Prince of the North]

The original quote said that neither Ned nor Cat was killed, directly or indirectly, by a Baratheon. I don't think that statement is really true. The great thing about ASOIAF is how layered everything is - nothing ever happens in a vacuum.

Exactly! While a Baratheon did not directly kill Ned or Cat, if it weren't for the connection between the Baratheons and Starks Ned would never have gone south to be Hand, would never have gotten caught up in the game of thrones, etc. So, in that way, I think the symbolism of the stag's horn killing the direwolf is appropriate.

[Gregor Barksdale]

So if someone says something you don't like in the books, they are probably lying? lol. I should have thought about it sooner.

No. She's lying for the reasons given above.

[Gregor Barksdale]

Old Gods. Magic. What's the difference?

Serious Gods don't need magic.

[iamthedave]

I don't mean to offend, but I have to say that it is pointless arguing with people who believe the Direwolves weren't supernaturally provided to the Starks, that Sansa didn't betray Ned (albeit without foreseeing the consequences), that the Old gods don't exist as some kind of supernatural force, and that the antler in the dead Direwolf mother wasn't ABSOLUTELY prophetic.

Anyway, each to his own. Might I recommend that you actually read a series called A Song of Ice and Fire at some point in the future. You might enjoy it.

Even accepting that all the above is true (which I do)... it doesn't detract from the fact that almost everything you inferred from those facts is complete bollocks.

The idea that Sansa is 'not a Stark' as you put it forward is complete No True Scotsman, and applies even more to Arya than to Sansa at this point, AND is contradicted by the fact Sansa wished to go home to Winterfell - which she very clearly thinks of as home - from as early as AGOT and her plotline seems to be heading her that way so that she will be the Stark in Winterfell.

I'm afraid hiding behind mockery and disdain doesn't change the fact your own argument was rubbish.

In fact, Martin created Arya as the true Stark. Sansa - her complete opposite - was merely added because no family is perfect, and her unstarklike personality added some conflict to the family.

Arya, the one true Stark. Forget that Robb fella or Bran or Rickon or Sansa or Ned or any of the others, no, ONLY ARYA IS A STARK!!!

Your raging fanboyism is cute, but ridiculous.

Arya is Lyanna in almost every sense, only she has taken it to a whole new level.

O RLY? I don't recall it every been mentioned that Lyanna had begun training as an assassin when she (probably) gave birth to Jon. I don't recall her being captured by violent psychopaths, reduced to the level of a common servant and beaten bloody on a regular basis, either. I equally don't recall her being driven out of Westeros and taking on an assumed name while living on the streets.

How, precisely, is Arya taking her 'Lyanna'ness to a whole new level? By assuming a completely different identity?

[inkasrain]

Exactly! While a Baratheon did not directly kill Ned or Cat, if it weren't for the connection between the Baratheons and Starks Ned would never have gone south to be Hand, would never have gotten caught up in the game of thrones, etc. So, in that way, I think the symbolism of the stag's horn killing the direwolf is appropriate.

I was wondering if people would take issue with the "indirectly" thing. I hear what you and Brother Wolf are saying, but the connection is still too distant for me. Ned was in King's Landing on the order of a Baratheon, but he was not killed by a Baratheon, or on the order of a Baratheon. Stretching all the way back to Robert asking Ned to be Hand in order to find a Baratheon "responsible" for Ned's death is just too convoluted for my taste, especially considering how neatly the rest of the dead direwolf "symbol" apparently corresponds with the Stark children.

I don't mean to offend, but I have to say that it is pointless arguing with people who believe the Direwolves weren't supernaturally provided to the Starks, that Sansa didn't betray Ned (albeit without foreseeing the consequences), that the Old gods don't exist as some kind of supernatural force, and that the antler in the dead Direwolf mother wasn't ABSOLUTELY prophetic.

Anyway, each to his own. Might I recommend that you actually read a series called A Song of Ice and Fire at some point in the future. You might enjoy it.

Oh. So if we don't agree with you, we haven't read the books right.

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

[Errant Bard]

We also know Sansa spilled the beans about Ned's plan, only because she wanted to remain at the palace with the love of her life, Joffrey.

Yes, we know that. But we are talking about Cersei explaining how she knew Ned's plan. And we know Ned told her, and even gave her a time limit. He even wonders why Cersei is still there, after Robert comes back and dies, when he goes to seize control.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to argue that Ned didn't kill Lady or that Ned was solely responsible for Lady's death?

No, I'm trying to argue that if you go the "OMG fate symbolism" road, then this scene obviously says that Sansa will be killed by a Stark because of actually being a Stark, and the only one in reach, or she will be removed from the Stark family because she was a Stark, and the Stark was forced to do it because Lannisters turned on her instead of one of her unreachable siblings. (Robb's heirs, anyone?) ... or something like that.

You can make those thing mean anything you want.

Old Gods. Magic. What's the difference?

Lightning, Zeus, what's the difference?

I feel a bit of Cosmological argument here.

I don't mean to offend,[...] Might I recommend that you actually read a series called A Song of Ice and Fire at some point in the future. You might enjoy it.

If you don't even understand that a sentence you wrote yourself is purposefully offensive, then agreeing with you on more subtle interpretations would seem misguided at best.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

I don't mean to offend, but I have to say that it is pointless arguing with people who believe the Direwolves weren't supernaturally provided to the Starks, that Sansa didn't betray Ned (albeit without foreseeing the consequences), that the Old gods don't exist as some kind of supernatural force, and that the antler in the dead Direwolf mother wasn't ABSOLUTELY prophetic.

The Stallion did not mount the world.

That was enough for me to know that prophecy is only right a percentage of the time, and you can't tell which way it will go.

So, in the case of the wolves, while a "Baratheon" (Joff) killed a direwolf (Ned), and while Robb and Greywind died together, and while Arya and Nymeria are both wandering lost, Sansa did not share the same fate as her direwolf (death). This doesn't mean that prophecy is never true - in fact a lot of what we see in the books is that personal actions can break prophecy. Cersei and Joffery's pretty unimaginably unfair lust for wolf's blood led to Lady's death, not Sansa's supposed "unstarklikeness".

At any rate you've still failed to respond to the fact that there are many ways to be a true Stark. You need look no further than Ned's generation - four siblings, and only two had "the wolfsblood", but they were all Starks of Winterfell.

[Tall Tyrion Lannister!]

The only way i could see the Direwolves having any kind of resemblance to what their owners go through is Arya and Nymeria both being lost. Sansa does not die when Lady is killed, Nothing's happened to summer and Ghost or I Summer Shaggydog. Greywind died because of something Robb did.

In this series prophecies are hit and miss, or they just haven't come to pass yet. the only prophecy that i can think of that came true was the House of the Undying.

[Free Northman]

The Stallion did not mount the world.

That was enough for me to know that prophecy is only right a percentage of the time, and you can't tell which way it will go.

So, in the case of the wolves, while a "Baratheon" (Joff) killed a direwolf (Ned), and while Robb and Greywind died together, and while Arya and Nymeria are both wandering lost, Sansa did not share the same fate as her direwolf (death). This doesn't mean that prophecy is never true - in fact a lot of what we see in the books is that personal actions can break prophecy. Cersei and Joffery's pretty unimaginably unfair lust for wolf's blood led to Lady's death, not Sansa's supposed "unstarklikeness".

At any rate you've still failed to respond to the fact that there are many ways to be a true Stark. You need look no further than Ned's generation - four siblings, and only two had "the wolfsblood", but they were all Starks of Winterfell.

Yes, but in line with the whole theme of magic returning to the world along with the Dragons and the Others, it is pretty obvious that this generation of Starks are not run of the mill representatives of their family. It is not every generation of Starks that receives direwolves from the gods. As far as we know this is the first such occurence in the recorded history of the Stark line.

These Stark children received direwolves for a specific purpose. And if they lose their direwolves for whatever reason, these intended destinies of theirs are thwarted.

[Kittyhat]

I have come to realise what I love so much about Arya's character. When you get right down to it, through Arya we experience perhaps the only character who never succumbs to the terrors of her environment, but instead manages to exert the power of her personality no matter what tribulations she is subjected to.

She shows her defiance in small, but incredibly powerful ways. And it is this defiance, and her determination to impose her own will on her environment and situation that offers us an escape from the endless list of other characters who are largely victims of their circumstances.

Some of the most treasured exmaples of Arya defying the morbid and depressing circumstances she constantly finds herself in are the following (and my references grow more vague the further back in the series they occur, because I haven't read the early books for many years now):

Her defiance of the Septa when she has to do embroidery.

Hitting the most powerful young man in the realm - Joffrey - with her wooden sword - classic!

Riding through the ravaged Riverlands, and instead of letting the rotting corpses terrify her, she reaches up and plucks an apple from amongst them, and bites into it. Very liberating for the reader.

Despite being in the most terrifying location in Westeros - a servant in Harrenhal - she becomes the Ghost of Harrenhal and once again exercises her power in an otherwise powerless situation.

Leaning over to Ja'qen Hqar and whispering the name: "Ja'qen Hgar". Beautiful.

Sticking Polliver with the pointy end.

When the Kindly man transforms into a rotting corpse with a worm in his eye, she plucks the worm out and eats it. Again, you just get the feeling that whatever the situation, Arya will not only surive it, but take control of it.

When the Black Pearl - the most exclusive courtesan in Braavos actually deigns to talk to her ( a mere street urchin), asking her what is your name little one, she replies something like. "Cat. And don't call me little one." Classic!

Her defense of Samwell against the Bravos, despite her being an 11 year old girl and him being a full brother of the Night's Watch. That was truly enjoyable.

The point is, amidst all the suffering the reader has to experience, and the helplessness of most characters, Arya's is the ONE chapter you can look forward to where the character will never have a victim mentality, will never wallow in self pity, but will stubbornly take control of whatever part of her destiny she is able to.

Hence, while I dread what new horror or misfortune I will experience when I read through the eyes of my other heroes like Bran or Jon, I positively relish the Arya chapters, because I just know she will deal with whatever comes her way, and put her own uniquely forceful stamp on the situation.

For people who follow the theories of personal effectiveness, she is the ultimate example of someone who has an internal locus of control, rather than letting her situation determine her behavior for her. Her will dominates her circumstances, irrespective of the actual power that she possesses, rather than the other way around.

Oddly enough, I get the feeling you get from Arya more from Daenerys actually (though I do like Arya, too). It's like when I get to her chapters, I can finally breathe. For a moment, the oppressive grimdarkness of Westeros is lifted, and I'm following a woman who takes control of her own destiny rather than being controlled by it.

Always they're saying it can't be done, that it's better to move on and give up with whatever's at hand, and always she's proving them wrong.

"It is known."

"Not to me."

But Arya's fun too! :D

[Free Northman]

Oddly enough, I get the feeling you get from Arya more from Daenerys actually (though I do like Arya, too). It's like when I get to her chapters, I can finally breathe. For a moment, the oppressive grimdarkness of Westeros is lifted, and I'm following a woman who takes control of her own destiny rather than being controlled by it.

Always they're saying it can't be done, that it's better to move on and give up with whatever's at hand, and always she's proving them wrong.

"It is known."

"Not to me."

But Arya's fun too! :D

I can totally understand why you get that same satisfaction from Daenerys. She has a similar effect, if a less direct one. It is merely a matter of personal preference, where I like my gratification more immediately, directly and personally, rather than seeing it achieved through political or strategic means.

Where Dany is subtle and political, Arya is direct and confrontational. Dany has political power. Arya has personal power.

One is a general, the other is a "rogue gunslinger".

One is a consensus seeker, the other is a loner.

One is Professor X, the other is Wolverine.

I just happen to like the latter more, but the former achieves the same, in different ways.

[Herr Fick]

[...]

Anyway, each to his own. Might I recommend that you actually read a series called A Song of Ice and Fire at some point in the future. You might enjoy it.

Your ridiculously condescending tone isn't improving this discussion and fails to help your point, Sir.

You are interpreting Martin's novels*. You do not know anything about their mythological background for a fact - except that magic seems to be possible. This is because the author deliberately obfuscates the mythology, its role in the narrative as well as its historical tradition within the secondary world itself.

*: (which we all have read, and which, if I may say so, Errant Bard knows rather well...)

[Free Northman]

Your ridiculously condescending tone isn't improving this discussion and fails to help your point, Sir.

You are interpreting Martin's novels*. You do not know anything about their mythological background for a fact - except that magic seems to be possible. This is because the author deliberately obfuscates the mythology, its role in the narrative as well as its historical tradition within the secondary world itself.

*: (which we all have read, and which, if I may say so, Errant Bard knows rather well...)

You are correct that my response was directed at Errant Bard in particular. But only because the points he was putting forward are so fundamentally indefensible that I was brought to the conclusion that he was only being argumentative for its own sake.

If we disagree on such fundamental things as whether the direwolves were purely random additions to the Stark family, whether Sansa actually gave away the logistical details of Ned's plan to Cersei, and whether or not the antler in the dead Direwolf was a clear symbolic reference to the Baratheons arriving at Winterfell and causing Eddard to travel to King's Landing and ultimately to his death, well, then my view is merely that we cannot continue the discussion on any level beyond that, because our understanding of the books is simply too different.

Hence my statement that it is pointless continuing the discussion between us any further. Nothing would be achieved by it.

[Herr Fick]

But only because the points he was putting forward are so fundamentally indefensible [my emphasis, HF] that I was brought to the conclusion that he was only being argumentative for its own sake.

[...] we cannot continue the discussion on any level beyond that, because our understanding of the books is simply too different.

Hence my statement that it is pointless continuing the discussion between us any further. Nothing would be achieved by it.

See, you might get away with calling for an (open) end to a discussion that clearly seems to lead nowhere because of incompatible interpretations or perspectives.

But you don't get away with it when, in the very same post, you make as foolish a statement (or as brash a rhetorical feint) as the bolded one above. Because, you see, these points that so vex you are not "indefensible" at all. In fact, they have been put forward and defended many times, not just in this thread but in numerous threads before.

[Free Northman]

See, you might get away with calling for an (open) end to a discussion that clearly seems to lead nowhere because of incompatible interpretations or perspectives.

But you don't get away with it when, in the very same post, you make as foolish a statement (or as brash a rhetorical feint) as the bolded one above. Because, you see, these points that so vex you are not "indefensible" at all. In fact, they have been put forward and defended many times, not just in this thread but in numerous threads before.

Look, I see that you're getting worked up over this. So let's just drop it.

I don't feel the urge to get away with anything.

I totally disagree with his assertions because, Sansa DOES tell Cersei that Ned is planning to send her back to the North, which gives Cersei the crucial warning she needed. There no arguing about it. It is fact.

The symbolic nature of the Direwolves and the Antler etc. are not controversial or even merely probable, no, they are clear.

I'm not going to argue over whether the Lannisters wear crimson or the whether the Redwynnes are form the Arbor. That would just be a waste of time. Similarly, I am choosing not to debate the equally obvious points he is trying to present as controversial.

Can we therefore please move on to something else?

[DurararaFTW]

I totally disagree with his assertions because, Sansa DOES tell Cersei that Ned is planning to send her back to the North, which gives Cersei the crucial warning she needed. There no arguing about it. It is fact.

She needed to do what?

Ned and Cersei both made their moves the moment Robert snuffed out. The approximate time he was gonna snuff out was known to both. That Ned wasn't gonna let Joffrey take the crown was known to Cersei already. The eventual grabbing of power was done by the party that Littlefinger and hi 2000 goldcloaks decided to back.

What part in this chain did Sansa telling Cersei she was being send back to the North effect?

[Brother Wolf]

Anyway, each to his own. Might I recommend that you actually read a series called A Song of Ice and Fire at some point in the future. You might enjoy it.

Remember when I said this thread was in danger of taking itself too seriously? We are officially "there" now.

[Alexius]

I totally disagree with his assertions because, Sansa DOES tell Cersei that Ned is planning to send her back to the North, which gives Cersei the crucial warning she needed. There no arguing about it. It is fact.

The symbolic nature of the Direwolves and the Antler etc. are not controversial or even merely probable, no, they are clear.

You've picked two least ambiguous statements from your list of four and reformulated more ambiguous of these two to merely "symbolic" from "ABSOLUTELY prophetic". It's not a most constructive way to have a discussion.

[dcon]

Magic.

Was that a trick question or something?

Eh, I suppose we don't know for certain that the old gods exist but if they do I feel like it won't be a surprise