Becoming No One: Rereading Arya IV

[Alberich]

A few thoughts on revenge and justice. Those two are inextricably linked. Desire for revenge is at its core a desire for resolution, of setting the world to rights, what justice is meant to achieve. As far as desires for revenge go Arya's seems fairly healthy. It is aimed at particular people for particular deeds which are hardly trivial, it involves a genuine condemnation of the acts which landed them in her prayer and so far has demonstrated no desire or thought to enact it on other people who are merely associated with her targets. Many of them did not even hurt her personally. If it weren't for her personal stake in it, it could be called a deisre for justice. Contrast this with the actions of lord Karstark or the Sand Snakes. The other two options for resolution are forgiveness and letting go. Forgiveness is a two way street. It involves the perpetrator acknowledging and repenting his/her actions and the willingness to change his/her ways. This possiblitiy does exist for Arya as her refusal to kill the Hound twice has demonstrated. As for the rest of the people in her prayer, have exhibited none of those things. On the contrary they reap rewards for their behavior. Letting go involves the recognition of the futility of the pursuit or the recognition that the act itself was circumstancial and attributable to the fallibillity of human nature. Barring those however, it involves an acceptance and legitmization of the act and that Arya just won't do.

Many of the consequences described above revolve around the obssessive nature of the desire for revenge. This can, however apply to any passion or desire or even principle that is pursued regardless of reason, reality and intended result. This has been a dominant theme in the series and is indeed shown to be a destructive and consuming force. I don't think it applies to Arya, as far as revenge goes anyway. She has allowed desire for revenge take precedence over practical considerations one and a half times (Chiswyck and Weese) and regreted it almost immediately and I don't see her dooing it again. Also, she has had a chance to enact revenge on two of her people in her list and on of them she did not kill. As pprominent as her prayer is, I don't believe it is important itself, but rather for what it signifies, something we will have a chance to explore through her stint with the FM. Again contrast this, with the actions of lord Karstark and Oberyn Martell.

That's great! I have not seen this at now, but you are right, I think.

[Mladen]

snip

Brilliant post, JAO. Wonderfully written and it really emphasizes some of the biggest issues in Arya`s storyarc. Indeed well done...

The question of "who is (or are) you" is an ancient one. It is the question Polyphemus asks Odyesseus in The Odyssey. It is the answer famously given in the first sentence of Moby Dick: "Call me Ishmael," which may or may not be the narrator's real name. Arya Stark, regardless of the guises she has assumed so far remains Arya Stark. The "acorn," if you will, of her identity, as Lyanna noted above, is an example of how much and well Arya understands to whom she belongs. Although she circles away, (which is perhaps one of the reasons why Martin uses the images of circles so liberally in her storyline), she returns again and again.

I think Arya`s identity is also intertwined with her desire for revenge. Revenge for her is both `raison d`etre` and something that leads her into destruction of herself. Never forget, she got the coin after helping Northerners escape. So, her identity and desire for revenge to those that harm her family also led her to the path of becoming No one. And it is interesting to see how it resolves. Who are you? As long as there is a death list, as long as Needle is safe and wolf dreams happens, Arya is Stark. But, also she is losing bits by bits of herself. We talked how in Brotherhood she realized that being Stark means nothing, we`ll talk about her endeavour in House of black and white. Revenge is a burning feeling, but it also gives some sensation of warmth. Once Arya realizes that revenge is leading her to lose herself and her Stark identity, then we`ll have true Hamletian debate... To be or not to be?

A few thoughts on revenge and justice. Those two are inextricably linked. Desire for revenge is at its core a desire for resolution, of setting the world to rights, what justice is meant to achieve. As far as desires for revenge go Arya's seems fairly healthy. It is aimed at particular people for particular deeds which are hardly trivial, it involves a genuine condemnation of the acts which landed them in her prayer and so far has demonstrated no desire or thought to enact it on other people who are merely associated with her targets. Many of them did not even hurt her personally. If it weren't for her personal stake in it, it could be called a deisre for justice.

As much as I agree with this, revenge is something more passionate than justice. As Aristotle said, law is reason, free from passion. And Arya is nothing if not passionate. The revenge is also connected to satisfaction, as you said `setting the world to the rights`. It`s as much as about resolution as satisfaction for caused pain. But the greatest problem of revenge as mistake for justice is that you never punish juist the guilty ones. After RW, Arya mentiones Freys in general, but now her revenge for the first time becomes less personal, and more general. It`s not just about certain individuals it`s about entire group of men she plans to punish.

Lastly, we have Northern famous line `North remembers`. The philosophy of the line is so intertwined with burning desire in Arya`s heart to kill all those who wronged her and her family. But, interestingly enough, she is also closed to Lannister line about paying debts. And that is essentialy what is on Arya`s `coin of revenge`. One side being truly yourself and having identity as a Northerner, and on another doing what your enemy has done. And right now the coin is flipping and on which side it fells will determine Arya`s future...

[The Sleeper]

Brilliant post, JAO. Wonderfully written and it really emphasizes some of the biggest issues in Arya`s storyarc. Indeed well done...

Thank you.

As much as I agree with this, revenge is something more passionate than justice. As Aristotle said, law is reason, free from passion. And Arya is nothing if not passionate. The revenge is also connected to satisfaction, as you said `setting the world to the rights`. It`s as much as about resolution as satisfaction for caused pain. But the greatest problem of revenge as mistake for justice is that you never punish juist the guilty ones. After RW, Arya mentiones Freys in general, but now her revenge for the first time becomes less personal, and more general. It`s not just about certain individuals it`s about entire group of men she plans to punish.

I did not equate her desire for revenge with justice, preciselly because of her personal stake in it. I don't think revenge is her main drive, it is the one she is able to articulate and conceptualize at her age. For my part, her actions speak differently, both up to this point and later on with the FM. As for the Freys, the need to know their names appears consistent to me with her assigning personal rather than collective responsibity.

Regardless of its source, however, the concept of justice, as most people understand it, does involve the elements of retribution and punishment and it is expected to cater to the victim's need for emotional satisfaction. The phrase "eye for an eye" was uttered as law, after all, an expression of the principle that punishment should be comensurate and appropriate to the offense, as opposed to the general tendency of the day to blind the perpetrator, his family, friends and livestock. I believe the FM are meant to challenge those very notions, their application and consequences, as I think they are meant to fulfil that function in their society.

Lastly, we have Northern famous line `North remembers`. The philosophy of the line is so intertwined with burning desire in Arya`s heart to kill all those who wronged her and her family. But, interestingly enough, she is also closed to Lannister line about paying debts. And that is essentialy what is on Arya`s `coin of revenge`. One side being truly yourself and having identity as a Northerner, and on another doing what your enemy has done. And right now the coin is flipping and on which side it fells will determine Arya`s future...

I agree and this contradiction is made more poignant if the person exacting revenge has every justification. In the same vain, one of the contradictions the FM will pose to Arya is this: Her prayer is a tether to her identity and ostensibly the reason she persists with her gruelling training, yet to take revenge and complete her training means forgoing that very identity.

[Daphne23]

Regardless of its source, however, the concept of justice, as most people understand it, does involve the elements of retribution and punishment and it is expected to cater to the victim's need for emotional satisfaction.

Personally, I don't understand justice in this way, and I think GRRM puts forward at least one alternative meaning of 'justice' within the text, although, of course, it is debatable whether he intends this to be 'correct.' If we look at how Ned conceptualises justice and vengeance, I think he is the one major character who can separate his own personal feelings from the performance of justice, and actually finds it very hard to emotionally connect with the idea of 'revenge'. He is puzzled and concerned about Robert's continuing vengeful feelings about Rhaegar, and seems to feel nothing similar about the deaths of his own brothers. When Ser Loras wants to pursue Ser Gregor, Ned won't allow him to do so precisely because his own personal feelings would be involved and he would be seeking 'vengeance.' There does seem to be a sense in which Ned refuses to conceptualise 'justice' as emotionally gratifying for the victim, and instead focuses on stopping the offender and righting a wrong against society, even if the victim doesn't feel 'just deserts' have been done. (Cat, indeed, has an element of this as well in her repeated calls for peace; she says repeatedly that she doesn't want revenge for Ned's death if it means further bloodshed). In a world without due process of law, it's of course possible to argue that Ned's stance is a weakness and that being too forgiving led to many of his political mistakes, but I think, to an extent, GRRM means us to admire Ned's position through his thematic focus on the pointlessness of revenge (although this isn't completely consistent, as sometimes the Janos Slynts do get their comeuppance).

So what does this mean for Arya? I'm not sure. The FM do seem to want to separate Arya's emotional connection to her kills from the kills themselves, but this means foregoing both justice and revenge, not becoming more 'just'. It will be interesting to keep this theme in mind when re-reading Feast and Dance Arya.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

The question in her case takes two new form. What is left when all this has been stripped away and what is it that makes someone who they are.

Great post on identity, gave me some thoughts.

An identity could be -schematically and roughly- viewed as consisting of two parts, as labeled by the first and the last name of a person.

The first name, "Arya" in this case, represent the innate predispositions, the talents, the mentality of a person. I think it's what is left when everything else has been stripped away.

The last name, "Stark", has an "external" and an "internal" complement. A role in the society, a class and power position, social expectations, privileges and duties are some attributes of the external, while chilhood memories, family relationships, education and elementary values -all the things the Needle represents- add up to the internal. The "external" part is shared by all the family members while the "internal" shapes each individual in a different way.

These two parts are of course interrelated and interacting but sometimes are also conflicting. The most extreme case of conflict is, I think, Sam Tarly. The "Tarly" oppresses -needs to erase- "Sam", the Sam identity can "breath" only by abandoning the Tarly.

The remaining members of the Stark family have lost a part of their identity by losing Winterfell. It will be permanently lost to them if they don't get it back and they will need to replace it with a new identity, like the Manderlys did: they kept the "internal" part of their family identity (their gods, the knightly tradition, a name to remind them where they came from) but they are now the Manderlys of White Harbor, true northerners.

This is a serious loss, as refugees in our own history can evidence.

The "Arya" identity has been endangered at Harrenhal ("becoming a mouse") and, ironically, a Faceless Man was the key to retain it. In the end, the Harrenhal experience and generally the Riverlands journey resulted to strengthen and crystallize this part of her identity and I think it's almost impossible to lose it ever, no matter how many names and faces she takes.

(Contrast this to Cersei in Kevan's epilogue. If this Cersei we see is real and not a facade -I think and hope it's just that- then, the Cersei identity is lost. She keeps her name, she's still and always a Lannister, but she's not Cersei anymore...)

What is in danger is, I think, Arya's internal "Starkness" - all the things she hid with the Needle. Not by "forgetting" (erasing previous memories to become an FM is a misconception, IMO) but by consciously letting go, because it's too painful, because it's "useless", because she may decide she wants to be something else...

On revenge

That still leaves the question of the kind of resolution violence and punshment can achieve and whether it is worth the price the person asking for it has to pay, regardless of how good his/her reasons are. In fact, I think the FM, their whole philosophy and the sacrifices they demand both of their members and supplicants are a treatise on that very question.

I agree very much, especially with the quoted part. I want to add that the living Lady Catelyn was a perfect examble of someone who weights the price and decides it's not worth it.

[The Sleeper]

Personally, I don't understand justice in this way, and I think GRRM puts forward at least one alternative meaning of 'justice' within the text, although, of course, it is debatable whether he intends this to be 'correct.' If we look at how Ned conceptualises justice and vengeance, I think he is the one major character who can separate his own personal feelings from the performance of justice, and actually finds it very hard to emotionally connect with the idea of 'revenge'. He is puzzled and concerned about Robert's continuing vengeful feelings about Rhaegar, and seems to feel nothing similar about the deaths of his own brothers. When Ser Loras wants to pursue Ser Gregor, Ned won't allow him to do so precisely because his own personal feelings would be involved and he would be seeking 'vengeance.' There does seem to be a sense in which Ned refuses to conceptualise 'justice' as emotionally gratifying for the victim, and instead focuses on stopping the offender and righting a wrong against society, even if the victim doesn't feel 'just deserts' have been done. (Cat, indeed, has an element of this as well in her repeated calls for peace; she says repeatedly that she doesn't want revenge for Ned's death if it means further bloodshed). In a world without due process of law, it's of course possible to argue that Ned's stance is a weakness and that being too forgiving led to many of his political mistakes, but I think, to an extent, GRRM means us to admire Ned's position through his thematic focus on the pointlessness of revenge (although this isn't completely consistent, as sometimes the Janos Slynts do get their comeuppance).

So what does this mean for Arya? I'm not sure. The FM do seem to want to separate Arya's emotional connection to her kills from the kills themselves, but this means foregoing both justice and revenge, not becoming more 'just'. It will be interesting to keep this theme in mind when re-reading Feast and Dance Arya.

Personally, I don't see it that way either or rather don't see the point of punnishment and retribution from a practical and moral standpoint. I can, however, understand and empathise with the feelings of the aggrieved and if justice is the state of fairness, I do see the need to redress breaches of it. For all aspiration to impartiality, justice is a human concept, enacted and applied by humans and we are ruled by our emotions. At best it is an imperfect way to mop up the mess and it is never going to be pretty.

In the modern world, the words penal and punitive are involved in the application of justice and in my experience, most people believe comeuppance is an integral part of it. The culprits, suffer grievious harm in the application of justice and if the difference in theory between revenge and justice is merely intent, while means and results can appear to be exactly the same, how well can the line be maintained in practise? If this is the case in the real wolrd, how much more so in Westeros?

In Ned's case, while he maintains the rule of impartiality and feels the burden of his actions, he does call for the death of the offender and his banishment from the social order. While, he correctly dismishes the riverlords and Loras's personal motivations, he does address the immediate victims, the survivors of the Mountain's raids, and promises them the small balm of justice. More than that Ned is resolute in the application of justice even at political cost, as we see in Jorah Mormont's case. Again, the punishment he calls for banishment and execution and one of his reasons is that Jorah dishonored him as his liege lord. That attitude is unique among the Starks in the series, as we see Robb taking off Karstark's head and Roose Bolton being mindfull that word of his actions did not reach lord Rickard's ears. Ned himself, stands out as the exception in the series, not the rule, which I think reflects well on real life as well.

Ned is relevant in this case, because I believe that Arya's sense of right and wrong stems from him, filtered through her experiences and her eleven-year old perspective. The difference is that Ned saw it as a duty where Arya feels it as a need. I have a notion that the FM take the impartiality to the absolute exrtreme, dispensing even with judgement, an attitude which is of course the complete opposite of Arya's mentality.

[The Sleeper]

snip

Very interesting notions. Trying not to jump ahead, I think it would be interesting ot consider what she carries with her and what she leaves behind and how Nymeria and the coin fit in under that scope.

On revenge

I agree very much, especially with the quoted part. I want to add that the living Lady Catelyn was a perfect examble of someone who weights the price and decides it's not worth it.

True, and also worth noting that she lives for revenge like Arya does after everything else has been apparently lost.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Very interesting notions. Trying not to jump ahead, I think it would be interesting ot consider what she carries with her and what she leaves behind and how Nymeria and the coin fit in under that scope.

Nymeria is a tricky one. The direwolf as the symbol of House Stark and the pack mentality, point at first sight to the "Stark" identity.

On the other hand, Nymeria seems to be happy with her present situation. She thinks of her pack mates as brothers and sisters while Ghost calls them "small grey cousins" and there is no mention of her thinking of, or sensing her original pack while Ghost misses them and senses them, and Bran forces Summer to remember them: No, the boy whispered, we have another pack. Lady’s dead and maybe Grey Wind too, but somewhere there’s still Shaggydog and Nymeria and Ghost. Remember Ghost?

Nymeria is also displaying wild direwolf behavior and insticts, much more that the others: “It’s said that direwolves once roamed the north in great packs of a hundred or more, and feared neither man nor mammoth [...]”

All these point to me that Nymeria reinforces the "Arya" identity mainly.

[Blisscraft]

Ned is relevant in this case, because I believe that Arya's sense of right and wrong stems from him, filtered through her experiences and her eleven-year old perspective. The difference is that Ned saw it as a duty where Arya feels it as a need. I have a notion that the FM take the impartiality to the absolute exrtreme, dispensing even with judgement, an attitude which is of course the complete opposite of Arya's mentality.

I was reading an article the other day about how "darkness" effects human behavior. Yes, someone actually did a scientific study about light and whether light or its absence somehow "permits" a person to perform something that person would otherwise not do, such as cheating or stealing. Does light or darkness effect our moral compass? Apparently, the study showed that it does. The darker the lighting is, whether inside or out, the more likely one is to abandon one's moral compass and delve into mischief. Also, darkness seems to effect how we treat one another, as darkness supplies a degree of anonimity. Apparently, the more anonymous one feels, the more likely one is to mistreat others or perform acts that harm, such as cheating or stealing.

This seems to be a apt metaphor for Arya and her struggle. The "darker" her life has become, the more likely she is to let go of her moral compass and perform actions that she otherwise probably would have thought about, but never acted out.

The reason I posted your comment, JAO, is that I agree with it. The Stark moral compass stems from Ned. Martin goes to great lengths to make sure we know that in the first full chapter, (not the prologue), of GoT. Ned performs his "duty" to justice with the beheading Gareth, the NW deserter. Ned does this, not because Gareth has done anything "personal" to Ned or his property or family. Ned does this because he is sworn to the crown as a lord to dispense the king's justice. It is impartial, "blind," justice, so to speak. However, the northern way, "the old way" is for Ned to punish Gareth himself with his own sword. The exercise of the punishment, the beheading, is personal, as being perfomed by Ned, though he and his own does not suply not the reason for it. Justice and its consequences belong to the Realm.

Arya is not in this scene, yet she must know of it. What happens to her through her experiences is the gradual loss of her moral compass due to Westeros' increasing darkness. This may be what Old Nan means as "The Long Night". (Or maybe even "the dark night" of the soul?). The lines between personal and impersonal dispensation of "Justice" have become metaphorically or spritually or intellectually blurred. The "seed" or "acorn" of who Ayra is remains. It is her sense of direction, her moral compass that has been altered.

[The Sleeper]

Nymeria is a tricky one. The direwolf as the symbol of House Stark and the pack mentality, point at first sight to the "Stark" identity.

On the other hand, Nymeria seems to be happy with her present situation. She thinks of her pack mates as brothers and sisters while Ghost calls them "small grey cousins" and there is no mention of her thinking of, or sensing her original pack while Ghost misses them and senses them, and Bran forces Summer to remember them: No, the boy whispered, we have another pack. Lady’s dead and maybe Grey Wind too, but somewhere there’s still Shaggydog and Nymeria and Ghost. Remember Ghost?

Nymeria is also displaying wild direwolf behavior and insticts, much more that the others: “It’s said that direwolves once roamed the north in great packs of a hundred or more, and feared neither man nor mammoth [...]”

All these point to me that Nymeria reinforces the "Arya" identity mainly.

With the danger of carrying an analogy too far, I think Nymeria represents the part that exists before names, which is blood, nature and the part that forms the foundation on which everything else is built. The Stark sigil does not belong to the current generation but goes back in time and is a link to the mythological themes of the series. It can also be viewed as what the Starks, of old at least, aspired to. Note that in contrast to Needle which she can lose or put aside, she can't get rid of Nymeria. Not only that, she doesn't want to and if anything her link is growing stronger. it also ties in with the theme of liberation. While it was fear and tragedy that set her loose in the wild, it is also what made her free to develop the way her nature dictates.

snip

It makes sense. In the dark, when no one can see us, inhibitions are lowered and masks fall away. After all sex takes place in the dark (mostly) too. It is the time and the place where pretenses are done with and the true self emerges.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Arya is not in this scene, yet she must know of it. What happens to her through her experiences is the gradual loss of her moral compass due to Westeros' increasing darkness. This may be what Old Nan means as "The Long Night". (Or maybe even "the dark night" of the soul?). The lines between personal and impersonal dispensation of "Justice" have become metaphorically or spritually or intellectually blurred. The "seed" or "acorn" of who Ayra is remains. It is her sense of direction, her moral compass that has been altered.

Arya (and Sansa) have no real guidance on difficult issues such as justice, responsibility and consequences. They have an abstract and childish notion of right and wrong, fair and unfair *at the start of the series. They have to build a moral compass of their own, based on some values they didn't really understand in depth and on the deductions they dig out of their experiences.

I love Ned and I think he was a great father, but he never educated his daughters on such matters. He probably thought that girls are too sensitive to be burdened with hard issues that they would never have to deal with, as he or the boys (and later their worthy husbands) would be there to take care of.

Ned takes 7-year-old Bran with him to watch the execution and makes sure that he understands 1.why the man had to die, 2.why he must do it himself and 3.that justice is a duty and he must not take pleasure from it.

On the contrary, 11-year-old Sansa is not supposed to attend a court session that deals with serious but unpleasant matters:

He caught a glimpse of Septa Mordane in the gallery, with his daughter Sansa beside her. Ned felt a flash of anger; this was no place for a girl. But the septa could not have known that today’s court would be anything but the usual tedious business of hearing petitions, settling disputes between rival holdfasts, and adjudicating the placement of boundary stones.

He never thought of talking about this court with her, and Sansa is left to think about it on her own and make her mind between the septa's "lesson" that "it was not her place to question her lord father’s decisions", Littlefingers reasoning of why Ned's decision was wrong, and her own childish notions.

Similarly, Arya frequently refers to Ned's quote "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man’s life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words" but she never refers to the rest we saw him teaching Bran. She does not really know / understand Ned's reasoning about it. Ned had the "pack discussion" with her as a final means to make her behave, only when every other measure of discipline had failed. Ned never bothered to have a similar discussion with Sansa because he didn't have to; she was the good, obedient daughter.

Even worse, in the world they are living some of their father's values are not applicable: "Her lord father had taught her never to steal, but it was growing harder to remember why". And in a degree it's true, some of the lords' laws do not take into consideration the living conditions of the commoners and are extremely hard on them.

In conclusion, I think the girls have been thrown in the "jungle" with a poor moral guidance to light their way through darkness. The line was never clearly drawn, it was always blurred but before the tragedy it was never tested, nor expected to be tested. Arya's time with the Faceless Men is IMO a time of reflection and an opportunity to draw this line on her own. For better or for worse, it remains to be seen.

edited for grammar and clarification

[The Sleeper]

snip

I am currently doing a reread and I came across the scene where Arya and Sansa are casually discussing over breakfast the subject of severed heads, whose walls they're supposed to adorn and who else's head needs to be lobbed off to Septa Mordane's horror. I think this scene demonstrates the point you are making and that the girls' understanding of what dad's job entails is quite superficial. I believe that Winterfell was an unusually sheltered environment, but what moral compass the girls begin with is the result of their memories of Winterfell and the image of what things should be like that it instilled.

The puzzling part is that Ned trusted his wife's council, left her to rule the North in his stead and to teach their son about being a ruler.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I believe that Winterfell was an unusually sheltered environment, but what moral compass the girls begin with is the result of their memories of Winterfell and the image of what things should be like that it instilled.

I agree. But then, they are confronted with a world where, if you try to stick to these values without being flexible, you probably die. The requirement for flexibility without a deep understanding of the meaning of these values can lead to a distortion of their essence, or rejection. They have to figure out the why and the how on their own. It's not easy at all.

In constrast Jon, while struggling with it, is more capable to hold to the core of his values. But Jon is a boy, and older...

The puzzling part is that Ned trusted his wife's council, left her to rule the North in his stead and to teach their son about being a ruler.

It's different. Sansa and Arya are daddy's precious little girls. It's sweet and frustrating in the same time...

[The Sleeper]

I agree. But then, they are confronted with a world where, if you try to stick to these values without being flexible, you probably die. The requirement for flexibility without a deep understanding of the meaning of these values can lead to a distortion of their essence, or rejection.

Yes. It is an unavoidable consequence, particularly when they have no idea how that environment is built and maintained. By contrast Sansa is shown that people only matter as assets and Arya learns how a castle is ran by the likes of Tywin Lannister and Roose Bolton. It still allows for the possibility for a deeper understanding to arise in the end.

In constrast Jon, while struggling with it, is more capable to hold to the core of his values. But Jon is a boy, and older...

Jon, even being elder and having considerably more training, still spents ACOK and half of ASOS stumbling among the wildlings and generally being in over his head. He still required that process to become who he is and I still don't think he is all the way through.

It's different. Sansa and Arya are daddy's precious little girls. It's sweet and frustrating in the same time...

Yes. Ned needed some growing up of his own as well.

ETA Though I suppose Ned' isolationism, was in part due to his desire not to be involved with this kind of crap again and it is no wonder that he wanted his children out of it as much as possible.

[Blisscraft]

Arya (and Sansa) have no real guidance on difficult issues such as justice, responsibility and consequences. They have an abstract and childish notion of right and wrong, fair and unfair *at the start of the series. They have to build a moral compass of their own, based on some values they didn't really understand in depth and on the deductions they dig out of their experiences.

----

Similarly, Arya frequently refers to Ned's quote "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man’s life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words" but she never refers to the rest we saw him teaching Bran. . . .

----

Even worse, in the world they are living some of their father's values are not applicable: "Her lord father had taught her never to steal, but it was growing harder to remember why". And in a degree it's true, some of the lords' laws do not take into consideration the living conditions of the commoners and are extremely hard on them.

You make some good points, but I disagree with you about both girls and their sense of right and wrong. Both have a very strong sense of morality. This seems to derive primarily from Ned. Your quotes above with regard to Ned's oft used adage: "The man who passes the sentence. . " and the thought that Arya has regarding stealing are examples of the strength of their morality rather than reflect a childish or abstract lack thereof. Arya is finding it hard to remember why it's wrong to steal because all of the rules have changed, that is the "darkness" which has come from the war and loss. The girls' experiences now and in the time to come have an effect on their behavior, rather than their sense of right and wrong.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

You make some good points, but I disagree with you about both girls and their sense of right and wrong. Both have a very strong sense of morality. This seems to derive primarily from Ned. Your quotes above with regard to Ned's oft used adage: "The man who passes the sentence. . " and the thought that Arya has regarding stealing are examples of the strength of their morality rather than reflect a childish or abstract lack thereof. Arya is finding it hard to remember why it's wrong to steal because all of the rules have changed, that is the "darkness" which has come from the war and loss. The girls' experiences now and in the time to come have an effect on their behavior, rather than their sense of right and wrong.

Sorry. I re-read my post and I see now that it can cause misunderstanding. I didn't want to say that their perception of right and wrong is childish and abstract in general (that's what I wrote, I know) but rather, that it can serve them as a moral guide in non complicated, clear cut matters. That's for the childish part. In more advanced, "adult", grey if you will, issues like justice and its requirements, their education baggage fails them. They know that what their father said and the way he bahaved was the right thing. They miss the reasoning, the why. This is for the abstract.

Here's the problem: it's obvious that if they try to emulate Ned's behavior in the world they are thrown in, they will be dead (and they are survivors, both of them). They have to figure out the essence of the most difficult moral concepts on their own, while living on the edge, which is very difficult. In the way, there is a possibility to reject some of Ned's ways as utopic and there is the certainty that there will be situations (edit: they already have) where they will cross the line, before they adequately develop a more advanced moral compass of their own.

ETA: In the conclusion of that post, I characterised their moral guidance as poor. I meant it in relation to the dilemmas they have to face, not in an absolute way.

[Blisscraft]

Whew! I didn't think you meant that. What a relief! Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

[Lyanna Stark]

Great discussion! Very interesting viewpoints. :)

It really stands out when you re-read Arya just after Sansa that the Stark girls are both thrown out woefully unprepared into a cruel world where what they learnt to be right suddenly seems to be all wrong and they have no idea why.

ETA: In the conclusion of that post, I characterised their moral guidance as poor. I meant it in relation to the dilemmas they have to face, not in an absolute way.

I agree with this, and to continue on what Blizzcraft wrote above, Ned and Cat instilled a basic moral compass in all the Stark children (including Jon) and this shines through. Compare to Tyrion and Dany and it's even more obvious. Tyrion goes into Kings Landing to "do justice", but as was obvious in the Tyrion re-read, he is too coloured by his Lannister heritage and his moral compass pointing too strongly towards Casterly Rock to really be anywhere close to impartial justice. Instead he ends up like Dany: he means well, at least most of the time, but it ends up being rather all over the place and with little consistency.

The opposite to Tyrion and Dany I think is Jon, who has had the most opportunity to really become Ned Stark 2.0 in his own interpretation, at least when we arrive in ADWD. But as Lummel pointed out above, Jon spends most of ACOK and ASOS being in over his head too, and he has had more training and is older than Sansa or Arya.

Further, in this case, I think Arya's and Sansa's gender is an added difficulty for them, due to the lack of training the girls seem to have got. Cat stands out as a woman who by a trick of fate got a boy's education, but somehow she does't find it necessary to bestow that on her daughters, perhaps because she is convinced nothing will happen to her other three sons and that the girls will just end up being married to some lord and become decorative lady wives.

This is why I think Sansa and Arya (especially Arya) are put through situations that they have no idea or clue how to handle simply because it didn't occur to anyone, not even in the worst of nightmares, that they would end up like that. It also means the girls have to rely on an "unfinished" moral education and understanding. They have the basics, but are faced with far more complex and cruel scenarios. They will have that basis to stand on though, unlike for instance Dany, who has to fall back on Viserys as her "basis" and he's outright terrible and often misleading as a teacher.

[Lummel]

We can see the massive potential of The Ned as a role model for Arya, and really considering the whole Rhaeger and Lyanna business massive isn't a big enough word, in the experiences we see The Ned and Arya sharing in AGOT, in particular Arya II - the lie which was not without honour, his love as a response to her sense of loss and guilt and his decision to nurture her interests as an individual.

There is the consideration of the particular needs of the individual, awareness of circumstances, compassion for the suffering of others, enormous love of family.

This is a little different from the Arya we are experiencing in the story to date, yet The Ned was also young once and was also living through profound suffering with the loss of his father, brother and sister - so not so unlike the situations that his children are themselves struggling through in ASOIAF. At the same time of course The Ned's lack of love for the Lannisters was also enduring so we have to see quite where Arya will emerge should she escape the underworld.

[liberal teapot]

I think that Ned sheltered his kids because he was forced to grow up suddenly. He wasn't groomed for power but as a second son. He must remember that rude awakening and wish to protect his children's childhood, it's precious to him. Catelyn on the other hand received an education and then saw as it went to waste. Her southron education was inadequate for her marriage, and to make matters worse Edmure was the heir, a person whom despite her love for she doesn't respect as high lord. Let's not forget that Arya is 9 what seems like a full 4 years away from marriage, and that resemblance to his much beloved sister, didn't help either.