To all the haters of post-Saltpans Arya chapters

[Lummel]

...As far as I can tell, she is a live Stoneheart...

That's an interesting comparision.

My impression from the murder of the insurance man was that Arya was looking for justifications (he looks cruel, he behaves badly) but in the end she was happy to kill him just because it was the task she was given. Far from having moral qualms she seemed very interested in the purely technical side of the job and seemed to enjoy that. Which is pretty cold.

The frey Lady Stoneheart had killed was a war enemy and the Saltpans perpetrators were war criminals in the context of a war, which is bad enough, but Arya's position seems to me to be much worse and much bleaker morally.

OP, I'm still not seeing these haters of the post-saltpans chapters, did you really come across some in some corner of the internet or are you just pulling our legs?

[Lord Renly]

Errant Bard, you repeatedly say that if Arya is not a psychopath or a "bad guy," she must be "unchanged" by her experiences, a "princess with a heart of gold," a "saint," or a "spunky girl of the world saviors teen gang." That's a false dichotomy. She can be morally complex, like most of the other characters. I find it silly to single her out as a "bad guy" when even Jaime, Theon, and Sandor generally don't get written off as such.

There's also no basis for seeing her empathy as "manipulation"--it's not manipulation when you simply feel sorry for someone, or side with the underdog, or think a situation is "unfair." Nor would you think any of those things if all you care about is hurting.

I also do agree with Queen Cersei I, that "psychopaths" are uninteresting. "Bad guys" can be multifaceted, but "morally bankrupt" characters can't. I'm glad I don't think Martin is going there with Arya.

Re: Catelyn, I think it's bizarre to say she's not a reflective character or that she goes off "half-cocked." No character in the books thinks about or questions her own actions more than she does. Even when she kidnaps Tyrion, which is the fastest decision she makes, crams an awful lot of thinking into a brief period.

[Lady Kraken]

Non sequitur alert: will I what? And I'm not saying Sansa fans lack intelligence, I'm saying they lack maturity, a condition that will be cured by the passage of time. Alas, I will be dead and buried by the time some of them acquire it. Meanwhile, I will continue to avoid Sansa threads for the reasons Woman of War gave, and for my health. At my time of life I really can't afford to lose any more brain cells.

Suggesting that a certain group of fans lack maturity because they interpret the text differently than you strikes me as wildly immature.

[Lyanna Stark]

Yes the story is told through the point of view of different characters, and those characters are indeed interesting, but as far as I can tell, most asoiaf readers dread spoilers because they want to discover what happens next for themselves. I call that plot driven.

You found me deny that it's plot driven where? I said it was both, and if you miss out on one facet of it, you miss out on about half of the work. It CAN be read as only a plot and action driven type of work, but as I stated above already, it will make certain bits strange, boring and incomprehensible, for example most of Cat and Sansa's chapters and Dany's chapters in ADWD (common complaints but by no mean all).

However I object to the statement that I had the wrong expectations about ASOIAF. There's plenty of boy-howdy satisfying action in the series, and I would include Arya's Braavos chapters in these. And I don't think anyone has to like all the characters in a book to like it, in fact, I think the opposite is true.

I like all the chapters. I even like Victarion's chapters. Puzzling out the plot hints and the pieces of character development is what I like, since there is so much of it. Like for instance uncovering the "white" Bran chapter, or noticing the sexual innuendo in Sansa's or seeing the parallels between Arya/Sansa, Cersei/Cat, Dany/Jon and Sansa/Jaime for instance. "Liking" or "disliking" characters is a pointless endeavour to me. They are all part of the plot and hence have their place in the plot. They are all the author's designs, for a reason.

You, however, take the opportunity to insult me again by stating that I can't appreciate the character development angle. I certainly do appreciate character development when there is some. I don't see it in either Sansa or Cat.

Then you are not looking at it closely enough. Take Sansa for instance, since you seem to have proper beef with her. In AGOT she is naive, class conscious and have lots of preconceived notions about prettiness meaning goodness. As of ACOK, she has dropped these completely, she is fearful and careful yet still tries to save Dontos and she appreciates the Hound despite his uncouth demeanour. In ASOS we see her come to realise the truth of only being a claim to Winterfell and that even a marriage to Tyrion will not save her from Joffrey's wrath. She manages to completely fool every single one in Kings Landing, including Tyrion and Varys, that she is in on any plan to escape. In AFFC she is completely over pretty knights, she does not want to be married ever again and she relishes being a bastard girl and dreams of meeting her half brother Jon Snow.. She has completely internalised the Hound's advice of "They are all liars here, everyone better than you" (in fact her internal discourse even takes on his voice sometimes) and she's taking onboard LF's "Lies and Arbor Gold" as her next internalised message. Her view of love, marriage, family, security, friendship, trust, prettiness and ugliness have all changed. She also has a very clear and very cynical and sad grasp of exactly what role she has currently played in the Game of Thrones and which role she does not want moving forward.

Voila! Character development! Sansa has learnt, she has grown, she has changed. In much the same way as Arya.

I might add here too that this is the extremely abbreviated version, in reality there is much more, and far more interesting nuances, like trying to figure out what the unsaid parts of Sandor's and Sansa's conversation on the rooftop of Maegor's are, how she relates to the Sansa/Alayne split, to which degree she is onboard with Littlefinger's plans and to which degree she is already lying to him, Sansa's suspicion about Marillion, to mention a few.

And thank you, I have a rather extensive fantasy library already. It includes books by Abercrombie, Baaker, Butcher, Clarke, Gaiman, Harkaway, Hodgell, and so on through the alphabet to Valente (now there's a woman who can write character-driven fantasy) and Zelazney. I think I know my fantasy and I know what I like.

Then you will also know like I do who have been reading genre for over 20 years now that none of these are like ASOIAF.

How about doing something. Anything.

Character development, subtle politics. Described above.

Non sequitur alert: will I what? And I'm not saying Sansa fans lack intelligence, I'm saying they lack maturity, a condition that will be cured by the passage of time. Alas, I will be dead and buried by the time some of them acquire it. Meanwhile, I will continue to avoid Sansa threads for the reasons Woman of War gave, and for my health. At my time of life I really can't afford to lose any more brain cells.

You'll be very welcome in the Sansa threads. While the reread threads certainly have personal opinions in them, they follow Sansa's arc in a very interesting and informative fashion. In fact, after more than ten years in fandom (again revealing my advanced age!) I have seen few things as well done, polite and enjoyable.

Oh, sweetling, there was nothing unintentional in or about that statement. I just hope you get all its meanings.

Nope, can't say I do, I think you'll just have to be kind enough to explain. Just chalk it up to advanced old age. We old people tend to miss what you young whippersnappers mean quite often. :)

[Ice Turtle]

My understanding of Arya killing insurance man is that she justified it because she knows someone has to really hate him (personal cost for hiring FM is horrible) and she thinks that he refused to pay money to some poor widow as he had promised (now I'm not sure how much of it is true and how much is FM manipulation)

About killing only because someone gave her order, that makes her no different from knight of Kingsguard or Man of the Night's Watch. Balon Swamn would kill Trystane only because Cersei instructed him and Jon was really considering killing Mance in front of his pregnant wife

It's unquestionable that Jon, Ned, Robb and probably Sansa (not entirely sure in this case) have better morals, but Robb and Jon had been taught them, Ned's daughters never got the lecture about not enjoying killing and only one who would give Arya any solid moral guidance was Gendry

[Lummel]

...About killing only because someone gave her order, that makes her no different from knight of Kingsguard or Man of the Night's Watch. Balon Swamn would kill Trystane only because Cersei instructed him and Jon was really considering killing Mance in front of his pregnant wife...

That's true. Although I think that the kingsguard is a morally bankrupt organisation and the nights watch is a mixed bag...

[Errant Bard]

The frey Lady Stoneheart had killed was a war enemy and the Saltpans perpetrators were war criminals in the context of a war, which is bad enough, but Arya's position seems to me to be much worse and much bleaker morally.

Yes, that's a good point, I was thinking more of her stint with Dareon and how she would treat potential personal betrayals, but it's quasi-certain that Catelyn doesn't actually enjoy thinking about murder. Nor does Balon Swann, for that matters.

Errant Bard, you repeatedly say that if Arya is not a psychopath or a "bad guy," she must be "unchanged" by her experiences, a "princess with a heart of gold," a "saint," or a "spunky girl of the world saviors teen gang." That's a false dichotomy. She can be morally complex, like most of the other characters. I find it silly to single her out as a "bad guy" when even Jaime, Theon, and Sandor generally don't get written off as such.

Hmm, but that's how her story is shaping, or would be if you removed the consequences or impact of murder. She can indeed be morally complex, and that's what is usually denied when people argue that she must not become a murderer/assassin, that she must keep her heart, and whatever. Like Brienne in her "sword or noose" predicament, a majority want a third option, an out where they can have their cake and eat it, and definitely not have a complex character.

You'll notice that I have argued that "bad guys" can be multifaceted all the same (mentioning, indeed, Sandor, Jaime and Tyrion, so I don't see how other people not saying they are bad guys is relevant to me) AND that being a world saviour can be awesome (like in the diamond age)

Did I mention that I like how Theon is done?

I just think, again, that considering how Arya's story is written, a leap backwards on the slippery slope would make her story more cliche and bland, whereas continuing to accuentuate the deranging aspect of her personality would make the PoV both more original and more interesting through its new facets. It's not, here, a general statement about spunky girls (as I said, again, I like some of those in other works), it's about Arya's story specifically.

There's also no basis for seeing her empathy as "manipulation"

About as much as there is a basis for seeing her manipulation as empathy.

I also do agree with Queen Cersei I, that "psychopaths" are uninteresting. "Bad guys" can be multifaceted, but "morally bankrupt" characters can't.

Care to comment about the examples of literary psychopaths I brought up in my last post, then?

[kephv]

My understanding of Arya killing insurance man is that she justified it because she knows someone has to really hate him (personal cost of hiring FM is horrible) and she thinks that he refused to pay money to some poor widow as he promised (now I'm not sure how much of it is true and how much is FM manipulation)

She tries to justify it, but like the KM tells her, he's really just an ordinary guy. One who perhaps didn't pay out as he should've once, but we really don't have any details on that to say whether what he did was justifiable or not. Someone could've easily just payed the FM to have him killed becuase he was cutting into their business and they wanted him out of the way. At the end of the day though, she killed a complete stranger in order to continue her advancement in the FM ranks.

About killing only because someone gave her order, that makes her no different from knight of Kingsguard or Man of the Night's Watch. Balon Swamn would kill Trystane only because Cersei instructed him and Jon was really considering killing Mance in front of his pregnant wife

The reasons are different. Those you mentioned are in service to a cause or institution because they believe in it, and the services required of them can be seen as a necessities in order to maintain their instituations (Jon at least; we have idea what Swann is thinking). Arya's past two kills have been for reasons of pure advancement and spite.

[Lady Kraken]

My understanding of Arya killing insurance man is that she justified it because she knows someone has to really hate him (personal cost of hiring FM is horrible) and she thinks that he refused to pay money to some poor widow as he promised (now I'm not sure how much of it is true and how much is FM manipulation)

About killing only because someone gave her order, that makes her no different from knight of Kingsguard or Man of the Night's Watch. Balon Swamn would kill Trystane only because Cersei instructed him and Jon was really considering killing Mance in front of his pregnant wife

I think killing the insurance man is an important moment for Arya. She's not killing to escape, in self-defense, or even out of a personal grudge. The insurance man has done nothing personally to her, and she's not even sure if he's a bad guy, but she kills him anyways. Trying to paint this act as justified actually does the moment a disservice, I think. By trying to find reasons to kill the man, it seems that Arya knows she's doing something wrong but does it anyways.

The Stark girls' storylines parallel each other quite a bit throughout the series and here is no exception. Both are in the hands of "The Master" right now, the Kindly Man and Littlefinger. While their situations are, on the surface, better than they were before, both girls are being pushed into darker territory. Sansa goes along with the framing of Marillion for Lysa's murder. She feels guilt over and justifies it, just as Arya feels guilt and justifies her killing. The situations obviously aren't completely comparable, and I'm not saying they are, but I think both girls are being pushed into dangerous territory here, and it will be interesting to see whether they embrace these new teachings, reject them, or find a way to use them while also holding on to their morality.

About the point I put in bold... This is an interesting debate. Is it murder if you're following orders? I think Arya actually has a lot in common with Sandor, who mainly kills on order. They both had traumatic childhood experiences, killed their first man at young ages, and learned to fend for themselves. But it's obvious Sandor is tortured, miserable, and consumed by hate/vengeance--is this a fate Arya is in danger of now? Both Sansa and Arya have "bad examples" in their lives of what they might become if they let their vengeance and hate take over. Sansa has an anti-mentor Cersei while Arya has an anti-mentor in Sandor. I think these are both warning signs about what they could become if they keep following the paths their currently on.

Just some random thoughts! While the recent developments in Arya's story make me nervous for her, I find them extremely interesting and have loved her Braavos chapters.

[Lummel]

...The Stark girls' storylines parallel each other quite a bit throughout the series and here is no exception. Both are in the hands of "The Master" right now, the Kindly Man and Littlefinger...

Just to add a little to that, Bran is also with an ambigious mentor, we have no idea what Bloodraven is about (except that it must be something big enough to justify oathbreaking in his opinion) and whether he's going to lead Bran more to the light, the dark or into the profoundly grey.

[weddylok]

It's a pretty nebulous word to argue on whether Arya wants it or not, then... I think Arya wants to have the skill to kill anyone, like Jaqen. I think she above all want enough knowledge, connections, autonomy, independence, authority, skill confidence, training, magic and so on, to not be forced to "be a mouse" like she was in Harrenhal, to not be forced to flee and let a Syrio or a Ned die, to never be subjected to a damsel in distress role (like in the first three books), dragged behind a different guy each day. She wants to be the Ghost in Harrenhal. It's a wish for herself and only her. Individual power. Enough for other people to not have power over her, but for her to have power over them.

She wants power.

But she wants more than any of that. Arya wants what they're teaching in order to kill those on her list, and because she hates being powerless -- Arya hates the idea of not being able to do anything. She'll challenge them and say it isn't so, try to prove them wrong. For example, the KM challenging her saying he doesn't think she has what it takes to be one of them, and of course, her reaction is that she screams at him defiantly that she can give up anything. She wants power, really not only for security and the possibilities it'll give her, but for the sake of power itself.

I agree with both of you. I believe she wants individual power, but not just to get revenge. I think she want's more than anything to be able to protect herself (and others, too). What I find really interesting is that she's training with the faceless men, learning to be an assassin, mostly because (I believe) she doesn't want to be powerless... like she was powerless to stop those she cared about from being killed. Quite ironic.

[Lummel]

...I think she want's more than anything to be able to protect herself (and others, too). What I find really interesting is that she's training with the faceless men, learning to be an assassin, mostly because (I believe) she doesn't want to be powerless... like she was powerless to stop those she cared about from being killed. Quite ironic.

Interesting. Wasn't Arya really angry back in AGOT when she found that dead Stark guardsman, the one who said that one northerner was worth ten southern swordsmen and therefore she had no reason to fear, or am I misremembering?

[kephv]

Interesting. Wasn't Arya really angry back in AGOT when she found that dead Stark guardsman, the one who said that one northerner was worth ten southern swordsmen and therefore she had no reason to fear, or am I misremembering?

In fact, she kicked his corpse. She wanted to kick Yoren's corpse too but was able to restrain herself.

[Lord Renly]

Hmm, but that's how her story is shaping, or would be if you removed the consequences or impact of murder. She can indeed be morally complex, and that's what is usually denied when people argue that she must not become a murderer/assassin, that she must keep her heart, and whatever. Like Brienne in her "sword or noose" predicament, a majority want a third option, an out where they can have their cake and eat it, and definitely not have a complex character.

Well, but that's rather a different subject. You're the one who said she is, or was becoming, a psychopath, so that's what I was responding to. No doubt there are people who don't want a complex character, and would rather Arya stay in the cute-spunky-tomboy box. But my point is that "psychopathic assassin" and "cute-spunky-tomboy" aren't the only two character-directions to go in. And that a character who has murdered, even murdered several times, doesn't need to become a psychopath. That's not an ordinary or even common consequence of murder. Moral and psychological damage, yes, but not psychopathy or moral bankruptcy.

I just think, again, that considering how Arya's story is written, a leap backwards on the slippery slope would make her story more cliche and bland, whereas continuing to accuentuate the deranging aspect of her personality would make the PoV both more original and more interesting through its new facets. It's not, here, a general statement about spunky girls (as I said, again, I like some of those in other works), it's about Arya's story specifically.

Leaps backwards are usually uninteresting, because they cancel out or ignore character development. But moral improvement--or moral plateau-ing--isn't a leap backward. A good writer can morally improve a character, or even just stop that character's further moral degradation, without pretending that what they did before never happened.

That's what I'd prefer to see with Arya, largely because I find her Braavos chapters highly uninteresting. I don't *hate* them, but I don't much care about them either (yes, I realize this is exactly what the OP was complaining about). And if she turns into a faceless assassin, I'll find it even duller. Most of the characters in these books are interesting to me because of their relationships to the other characters. If Arya makes the faceless transformation and completely separates herself from both Westerosi and Stark family notions of identity, honor and duty, then I just won't care about her any more.

This is purely my preference, though. Arya could certainly become a psychopath. But I would probably find that a pointless and dull development.

Re: manipulation and empathy, my point is that she has empathic moments inside her head, which can't be called manipulation.

Care to comment about the examples of literary psychopaths I brought up in my last post, then?

I make a distinction between interesting or compelling characters and interesting stories. A psychopath can be witty, like Richard III. He can be darkly hilarious, like Patrick Bateman, or like the Joker. A psychopath might also be fun to "dissect" in a very clinical way, in the way that a jigsaw puzzle is interesting: to solve the riddle and make the pieces fit.

But none of that means that the character's internal life is thought-provoking, or intriguing, or sparks the imagination. Most of those characters don't have much of an internal life at all, in my view. In Patrick Bateman's case, that seems to be a consequence of his psychopathy. YMMV.

To bring this marginally back on topic: I think it's to be expected that when a character (Arya) is removed from a setting whose political situation and interpersonal relationships we have become interested in (Westeros), to an entirely new setting which doesn't have a similarly well-drawn personal and political backstory (Braavos), some readers will dislike the change.

The only way to avoid this would be if Braavos were made as compelling as Westeros: if its ethos were as vividly and sympathetically and critically shown as the Westerosi ethos of chivalry; if its history were as well-known as the saga of Aerys and Rhaegar and Robert's Rebellion, and as dramatic and personal as the story of Lyanna Stark; and if there were many characters we actually cared about in Braavos.

None of that is true, so...people just won't care as much.

It's a bit like Dany in Meereen, though Braavos isn't nearly as bad as Meereen in terms of reader disinterest. Many people wanted Dany to ditch Meereen right away after ASoS and come to Westeros. There are plenty of valid reasons why she isn't doing that, and why Martin isn't having her do that, but IMO he's neglected to make her sojourn in Meereen actually compelling for us to read.

Edited to add that I just realized that someone in this thread actually blamed Catelyn for the Red Wedding because it's her fault for making a deal with Walder Frey in the first place.

Um, yeah, okay. Let's not blame Robb for breaking the engagement or sending Theon to Winterfell (which had a lot to do with the Bolton defection). Let's blame Catelyn instead for making a necessary deal to get across the bridge, without which they'd have no leverage to get Ned back--indeed, the best deal possible, because once Walder Frey's daughter is married to Robb then he has a real interest in supporting him, since Robb's advancement would be Frey advancement.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

You found me deny that it's plot driven where? I said it was both, and if you miss out on one facet of it, you miss out on about half of the work. It CAN be read as only a plot and action driven type of work, but as I stated above already, it will make certain bits strange, boring and incomprehensible, for example most of Cat and Sansa's chapters and Dany's chapters in ADWD (common complaints but by no mean all).

I like all the chapters. I even like Victarion's chapters. Puzzling out the plot hints and the pieces of character development is what I like, since there is so much of it. Like for instance uncovering the "white" Bran chapter, or noticing the sexual innuendo in Sansa's or seeing the parallels between Arya/Sansa, Cersei/Cat, Dany/Jon and Sansa/Jaime for instance. "Liking" or "disliking" characters is a pointless endeavour to me. They are all part of the plot and hence have their place in the plot. They are all the author's designs, for a reason.

I give up. If you want to believe that your way of reading is the one, true way, and superior to all, be my guest and live long and prosper.

Then you are not looking at it closely enough. Take Sansa for instance, since you seem to have proper beef with her. In AGOT she is naive, class conscious and have lots of preconceived notions about prettiness meaning goodness. . . . Her view of love, marriage, family, security, friendship, trust, prettiness and ugliness have all changed. She also has a very clear and very cynical and sad grasp of exactly what role she has currently played in the Game of Thrones and which role she does not want moving forward.

Voila! Character development! Sansa has learnt, she has grown, she has changed. In much the same way as Arya.

Yes, she's well and truly disillusioned, something that some readers think should have happened when Lady was killed. Now all she needs to do is acquire wisdom and act on it, which does not require picking up a sword, btw. I wonder how many volumes it will take for her to get to that point? But to go way back to one of my earliest posts on this thread, my first position, I. Don't. Care. To repeat, I'm not interested in teenage angst.

I just don't understand why a certain group of posters find Sansa so endlessly fascinating (please don't use this thread to explain); I can only assume they are identifying with the character and projecting their something-or-other on her. I can't do either and I don't see why I should have too. As for looking more closely, please, we're talking about one story arc in a work of pop fiction, not the Talmud. If my attitudes make me inadequate in some way I'll just have to learn to cope with my handicap and accept being a second-class citizen. Woe is I.

Then you will also know like I do who have been reading genre for over 20 years now that none of these are like ASOIAF.

That's right. Some of them are . . . better.

You'll be very welcome in the Sansa threads. While the reread threads certainly have personal opinions in them, they follow Sansa's arc in a very interesting and informative fashion. In fact, after more than ten years in fandom (again revealing my advanced age!) I have seen few things as well done, polite and enjoyable.

Been there, done that, got ridden out of town on a rail. Besides why should I crash the Sansa party? Barging into a friendly thread with an opposing opinion that's bound to start an argument is what I call trolling. I'd rather not.

Nope, can't say I do, I think you'll just have to be kind enough to explain. Just chalk it up to advanced old age. We old people tend to miss what you young whippersnappers mean quite often.

It seems you didn't enjoy being called an inattentive reader, well, neither did I. Get it now?

It's also time for me to leave this discussion, I've said too much already. You are welcome to have the last word.

[ARYa_Nym]

To bring this marginally back on topic: I think it's to be expected that when a character (Arya) is removed from a setting whose political situation and interpersonal relationships we have become interested in (Westeros), to an entirely new setting which doesn't have a similarly well-drawn personal and political backstory (Braavos), some readers will dislike the change.

The only way to avoid this would be if Braavos were made as compelling as Westeros: if its ethos were as vividly and sympathetically and critically shown as the Westerosi ethos of chivalry; if its history were as well-known as the saga of Aerys and Rhaegar and Robert's Rebellion, and as dramatic and personal as the story of Lyanna Stark; and if there were many characters we actually cared about in Braavos.

None of that is true, so...people just won't care as much.

It's a bit like Dany in Meereen, though Braavos isn't nearly as bad as Meereen in terms of reader disinterest. Many people wanted Dany to ditch Meereen right away after ASoS and come to Westeros. There are plenty of valid reasons why she isn't doing that, and why Martin isn't having her do that, but IMO he's neglected to make her sojourn in Meereen actually compelling for us to read.

IA that her place in the story is like Dany's except we have more of an idea on what Dany is going to do next because of her last chapter. I don't think Arya's chapters are action packed anymore since she left Westeros and they're very isolated from the rest of the plot. She's not in the thick of things. I think both Dany and Arya have slowed down and I expect it to pick up for both of them in the next book. I'm quite convinced that Arya will become apart of the Dany/Greyjoy storyline but I'm not sure how soon.

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

[sansa and Arya] are being pushed into dangerous territory here, and it will be interesting to see whether they embrace these new teachings, reject them, or find a way to use them while also holding on to their morality.

Awesome post altogether! I especially liked the quoted part: Rather than looking forward to super-magical-ninja-assasin Arya, or spiraling-into-psychopathy Arya, I'm just looking forward to future Arya chapters. I find the character interesting, and think Martin can go in lots of directions. Like Lady Kraken, I'm a bit nervous, but in the end I certainly care more about the execution than the destination of her story line (so to speak).

On the subject of whether it's murder if following orders: Laws dictate what is murder and what is not (like killing enemy combatants in war, for instance). Still, the comparison with soldiers is useful, as for the FM hit, Arya didn't pick her own victim randomly. The insurance salesman is a very different type of kill from the others, even the Dareon murder was closely tied to Arya of House Stark. Errant Bard's vision of Arya the Psycopath came one large step closer to becoming fullfilled (but I tend to agree with Lord Renly, a couple of posts above, that it's not the only possible direction that will feel realistic).

Wasn't Arya really angry back in AGOT when she found that dead Stark guardsman, the one who said that one northerner was worth ten southern swordsmen and therefore she had no reason to fear, or am I misremembering?

In fact, she kicked his corpse. She wanted to kick Yoren's corpse too but was able to restrain herself.

I don't get the significance of this. I thought it was just a childish, and idiosyncratic, way to to cope with the shock and horror of recent events? Sort of like a defense mechanism. She trusted, or relied on them, and was angry and disappointed (at the world) that their words and actions proved meaningless (in a way).

[Summerqueen]

I find the Braavos chapters interesting simply because Arya is in more jeopardy in her quest for a new place to belong/power/agency than she was at any other time in the series (lost, powerless). Here she seeks a place to belong, but at the cost of her identity. She seeks power/agency, but really she just signs up to move where she's directed (she has no say over who she kills, one of the reasons the FM promote detachment and sacrifice of selfhood—makes it easier for her to kill as directed). Her story is plotted on lines of deep irony.

Is she under threat of bodily harm? We don't know (why would we trust that she could just hop along on her merry way if she hated the organization?). Is she starving and cold? No. But she is being prompted to give up everything she held dear, from her name right down to her personal judgment‚ and these things won't be taken from her, she'll be expected to give them up freely. That's interesting to me.

That said, I agree with Lord Renly's assessment that her story has become less compelling dislocated from Westeros. I certainly think nothing much of Braavos (but I think Essos in general is weakly drawn).

[kephv]

I don't get the significance of this. I thought it was just a childish, and idiosyncratic, way to to cope with the shock and horror of recent events? Sort of like a defense mechanism. She trusted, or relied on them, and was angry and disappointed (at the world) that their words and actions proved meaningless (in a way).

Pretty much. I'm not sure why they brought it up either. :dunno:

[Lummel]

...I don't get the significance of this. I thought it was just a childish, and idiosyncratic, way to to cope with the shock and horror of recent events? Sort of like a defense mechanism. She trusted, or relied on them, and was angry and disappointed (at the world) that their words and actions proved meaningless (in a way).

I was picking up on Weddylok's suggestion about Arya looking for power to protect herself and to escape being powerless. The moment when she kicks the dead guard is anger at being powerless, I think there is something similar when she is in Harrenhall trying to be the ghost of harrenhall too.