#Arya being pretty is a relatively small part her character but the message behind it contributes to a larger picture

[fromtheseventhhell]

One major factor missing from most debates on Arya and Lyanna's beauty is that they're being judged by their society's extremely patriarchal values. In both looks and personality, that context is essential to understanding how others perceive them. George explores the misogyny experienced by non-conforming women, especially with Arya, and it's interesting how he plays with that regarding their physical beauty.

Her mother used to say she could be pretty if she would just wash and brush her hair and take more care with her dress, the way her sister did. (The Blind Girl, ADWD) "You never knew Lyanna as I did, Robert," Ned told him. "You saw her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that you have no business in the melee." (Eddard VII, AGOT)

These two quotes offer a nice summation of this idea. With Arya, her supposed lack of beauty is defined by her being a non-conforming wild child. Her hair is messy, her face is dirty, and she's often in "lower class" clothing while engaging in unladylike activities. None of this says anything about her physical beauty but it tells us everything about how she's perceived. Arya could be pretty...If she conforms to society's standards for a highborn Lady. With Lyanna, however, we get the opposite. Where Arya is judged based on her personality, Robert's romanticization of Lyanna is rooted solely in her looks. He doesn't know anything about the person she really was. There is an assumption that, because she looked a certain way, her personality must fit and Robert imagines her much softer and more passive than she actually was.

That Arya isn't pretty or Lyanna wasn't wild are two perceptions that George specifically pushes back against. This is where people miss the brilliance of them being linked as literary mirrors; it is largely about us learning more about Lyanna, but it touches on more than that. The significance of them being written as wild, willful, and with their own beauty is that George isn't writing his female characters around patriarchal expectations. When people debate their beauty, that's often the trapping they fall into. Beauty and non-conformity are treated as mutually exclusive factors when the story itself never makes that point; this is also the logic that leads people to the (incorrect) conclusion that Lyanna and Arya aren't meant to be similar. Arya's self-esteem issues around her looks and being a Lady make this a topic certain to be addressed in the future; George has made it a part of the story. The conclusion shouldn't be that "looks don't matter", but that looks aren't indicative of a character's value, personality, or morality.

[thelegendofclarke]

What do you think about Sansa not carrying out Littlefingers execution? I kinda wish she did it herself as her father said the one who sentenced should be the one to carry it out. It seems dumb to have her delegate it. But I guess Lf was on Arya’s hit list so...

Hey Anon! I’m so sorry it took so. long. for me to answer this, but I needed a break from the ol’ Ask Box…

Ooohhh Swordgate! Yet another Stark Sister wank that refuses to die. 

“I kinda wish she did it herself as her father said the one who sentenced should be the one to carry it out. It seems dumb to have her delegate it.” 

I think that essentially, you are falling into the trap of being far too literal. First of all, if you take “he who passes the sentence swings the sword” as literally as you are here, and take that logic through to it’s natural conclusion, it honestly produces a relatively sexist and ableist result. Not that I think you are being either, Anon! I just think it can be easy to accept words or “lessons” at face value and not ~dig deeper~ or ~look beyond~ to their full potential extent. 

Think of it this way: if it had been Bran who passed LF’s sentence instead of Sansa, but Arya still carried out the execution, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. I have seen no claims that Bran also should never be in charge of Winterfell because he is disabled and cannot lead soldiers into battle or carry out beheadings himself. Or what about Rickon; what if Rickon had survived and was serving as Lord of Winterfell or KitN? There is no way that 10 year old Rickon would have been able to lift a long sword and strike it with enough force to remove someone’s head. Even grown ass man Theon couldn’t do that, it would have to be done by proxy. And even Catelyn? I have seen no one criticizing her for asking the men at the Inn to help her take Tyrion into custody. It is extremely uncommon for women in the series to be skilled at any type of physical combat. Women like Brienne, Arya, or the Sand Snakes; they are exception, not the rule. Yet I have seen no arguments about Bran, Rickon, or Catelyn bringing dishonor to the Stark name due to their lack of physical capabilities; because that’s not what being a leader is really about. The Stark “pass the sentence, swing the sword” adage has never been about physical capability. It has always been about responsibility and accountability. 

Yes, Ned Stark did carry out all the executions of his sentences himself; and yes, he did teach his sons to do the same. However, being the person to do the literal, physical act is not what’s at the core of the sentiment. What is the core of the sentiment is that human lives have value, and recognizing that ending one is not to be taken lightly.

Here is what Ned tells Bran in the beheading scene in s1:

“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. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”

And here is the similar excerpt from AGoT:

“The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks, and we hold to the belief that 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. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.  

“One day, Bran, you will be Robb’s bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is.”  (AGoT, Bran I)

“Pass the sentence, swing the sword” is meant so much more symbolically than literally. This epitaph is about taking responsibility and accountability for your actions. It’s saying that part of being a lord, or a warden, or a ruler, or any type of leader at all is recognizing the importance of your orders and the effects that they on the people you are leading. It’s about being conscious of your responsibility to the people you rule over. It’s about acknowledging that taking another human life is no small thing and shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s not saying that having the physical ability and being able to kill is what makes a good leader, it’s saying that appreciating the significance of human life is. To use this quote as a way to shame or criticize characters for having limited physical abilities is a pretty sexist and ableist misapplication. 

And it’s not just about accountability, is it also about compassion and mercy. It is about not dehumanizing or distancing oneself from the criminals being executed. It is about treating people as people and recognizing that every single life matters, regardless of any other consideration. It is about treating people with respect and dignity, even when they are being executed. It is about facing the actual truth of what taking a life is, and demanding it be treated as the monumental thing it is. It is about acting with honor. To reduce this saying to one merely about physical capabilities and being able to kill someone yourself, honestly I think that takes so much away from the true lesson of the message. 

And in response to your question, I pose this one: why would Sansa carry out the execution? Honestly though, why?? Why would Sansa, who has never wielded a weapon against another character in the entirety of the series, take it upon herself to carry out the execution? When her sister, who she knows is extremely skilled in the areas of combat, is more than ready and willing to do so?! I am not saying Sansa couldn’t have found some way to do it, I am just asking why on earth would she?? Narratively and logically, that just doesn’t make much sense. In the series plot so far, Arya and Sansa have been in radically different environments and developing radically different skills that can be used for different purposes. Narratively all that happened for a reason: Arya learned how to handle weapons properly whereas Sansa didn’t. She has the skills to take a man’s life quickly and cleanly. She has the ability to carry out an execution with mercy and dignity, just like their father taught them to. And Sansa was standing right there beside her, she looked in to LF’s eyes as he was dying, she never looked away. (And I’m not even going to get into the fact that I would bet my left boob that if Sansa had been the one to knife LF, there would be sooo much complaining about “Sansa stealing from Arya again” and “Sansa taking Arya’s traits and skills” and “Sansa being a Mary Sue.”)

This scene is being interpreted as Arya passing Sansa’s sentence when in reality, the sentence was on behalf of all of House Stark. It was as much Bran and Arya’s sentence for LF’s crimes against their family as it was Sansa’s. His exposure and execution was a plan that they all played an integral part in from the beginning. They were acting together as a family. This was the show’s way of depicting to us how the remaining members of House Stark can still come together and work as a unified body after so much time apart. That they are still a family, that they are still a pack. 

Instead of viewing Sansa and Arya (and Bran for that matter). as three separate actors, there is an entirely different way to view the scene. Sansa, Bran and Arya were acting together as three parts of a unified body: the justice system. 

Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Those are the three arms of the law and all three are necessary for justice to be served. 

The Jury (Bran)- examines the evidence and evaluates it’s veracity and credibility

The Judge (Sansa)- applies the law to the evidence and passes the sentence

The Executioner (Arya)- enforces the law and administers justice by carrying out the sentence accordingly

Personally, this is how I viewed the scene from the get go, as a metaphor for the justice system. I realize that I might only think that way because I have spent the past, like, eight years getting it bashed into my head through my various degrees. But still, to me it made it a lot of sense and was relatively obvious to see it that way. The three arms of the law aren’t separate, they operate together in unity to make sure justice is served. Each plays an integral role in criminal due process. They are three parts that make a whole; with out one the other two are essentially rendered moot. With out one arm, the whole system falls apart. What good is having a jury and executioner with no judge to interpret and apply the law? What good is having an executioner and judge with no jury to examine and evaluate the evidence? And finally, what good is having a judge and jury if there is no one to enforce the law or execute the sentence? With out some kind of punishment, consequences, or retribution for illegal acts, there is hardly a point to the criminal justice system as a whole. They need each other. 

Ned’s most important lesson he taught his children was this:

“When the snows fall and the white winds blow the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives.”

Arya and Sansa need each other, all the Starks need each other. They are parts of a whole, they are a pack. And I just don’t see anything dumb or dishonorable about that. 

[moonlitgleek]

Do you think Ned Stark was successful in anything? Your metas heavily emphasize his failures, faults, and shortcomings. Do you think there was anything he was good at other than being viewed as a good man and moral? I don't see many people acknowledging positive aspects of him-other than he loved his family and was relatively a 'good' person, but that seems to be done more to lighten the criticism of him. Why is he so beloved in the book if he was such a fuck up to his family and the North?

Um, should I not criticize him where criticism is due? Or when an issue he did not handle properly is being discussed? I criticize Ned but I do not denounce him. It’s not that I’m heavily emphasizing his faults but there are places where Ned erred, even if it was sympathetic or understandable in some occasions. I’m generally against considering only one aspect of Ned’s personality as an indication of who he is as a whole, be them his virtues or his faults. My analysis of his motivations or his actions in a certain event isn’t a blanket condemnation of the character or any attempt to argue that he is a fuck up or a bad person. Flawed, certainly, but not bad. Far from it actually. The text itself criticizes Ned  because he, like every other character GRRM writes, is not a saint. He is one of the good ones, but he is not an impeccable untouchable paragon of all that’s good and right. He stands out, certainly, since he is sometimes the only person to speak up against some truly vile things (like the fight with Robert over his condoning of Elia and her children’s murder, or the one over Robert’s command to assassinate a pregnant Daenerys, in which he was joined by Barristan Selmy) but, well, Mycah.

I can’t really speak for the entire fandom, neither do I know what tone the conversation around Ned usually takes, but for me, Ned’s merits and morals and successes are explicitly laid all over the text so I don’t usually feel the need to argue for them. This is the guy who is reputed for his honor across all of Westeros, who garnered the epithet of the honorable Ned Stark. Everyone, friend or foe, make a mention of his morals and honor. And it’s not that he is good at “being viewed” as moral, he genuinely is. Ned Stark is the last person who would perform morality or honor. We’re inside the man’s head, we see his thought process, this is his character and his moral code.

The narrative gives us two contrasting ideologies in Tywin Lannister’s and Ned Stark’s to serve as foils to each other, and then goes to bat for Ned’s. It’s a part of a larger body of stories that is meant to make a statement about the importance of upholding values and believing in ideals even when corrupt institutions and individuals ridicule and distort them, or even use them against you. A corrupt system can’t take your ideals away from you, no matter what. Ned’s story falls right in line with this message. His ideals win. His political theory wins. He wins. How can he, then, be considered a failure?

In-universe, it’s Ned’s legacy that has so many factions fighting for his children’s rights right now. Even Stannis, who does not like Ned and resents the hell out of him, expresses a lot of respect for him and admits to his value and morals. Throughout their stories, the Starklings encounter people who help, support and trust them right off the bat because they are Ned’s. Alys Karstark goes to Jon for protection because he is Ned Stark’s son. The mountain clans choose to die for “the Ned’s little girl”. Meera and Jojen Reed pledge heart and hearth and harvest and swords to Winterfell. The support Jon and Robb gain at the very start is in no small part due to them being Ned’s. This isn’t solely about the Stark name, this is specifically about the character of Eddard Stark and the way he ruled the North. You simply don’t inspire that level of loyalty and love if you’re a failure.

It’s true the Starks are revered in the North for protecting their people and being just plain generous (e.g: their long-lived tradition of taking in people in the winter town in wintertime to share with them the advantages of Winterfell’s higher technology of the glass gardens and hot springs, the benefit of which makes the difference between life and death in winter) but not only does Ned uphold that model, he capitalizes on it. You can easily see why he’d be so loved when you learn of the way he treated his lessers from minor nobles to the servants, and the apparent respect and engagement he showed to both his vassals and his household. Ned took care to foster loyalty in his people, employed a ruling theory based on having his vassals’ respect and admiration, and impressed the importance of doing that on his kids.

The Starklings’ behavior and ideals reflect Ned’s successes with them as much as it bears his mistakes. These kids’ value system is largely shaped by his teachings and it’s his moral code they try to follow. They aspire to (and do) follow his example. They are all, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, falling back on Ned’s teachings and model of behavior. They have a constant thread of “What Would Eddard Stark Do?” running through various storylines; a part of it is expected childish idolization of their father, for sure, but these kids also recognize that his morals and ideals are sound, and his example is a pretty good one to follow.Ned, by and large, shaped their personalities (some more than the others, obviously) and his influence is always there. The way Robb invites a different bannerman to ride with him everyday, which is echoed by Bran back in Winterfell, comes from Ned. Sansa’s absolute belief in the strategy of inspiring loyalty through love comes from Ned. Jon and Arya’s sense of justice comes from Ned. Their collective sense of responsibility and recognition of the value of every individual life comes from Ned.

Unfortunately, we get so little interaction between Ned and his children but what we do get, combined by how his kids think of him, tell of a loving, approachable and available father. He listened to his children and demonstrated a willingness to let their arguments and wishes change his mind in a way that isn’t exactly common in Westeros (e.g: listening to Jon’s argument and allowing the kids to keep the direwolves after he initially refused Bran, hiring Syrio to train Arya and planning to offer for him to accompany them back to Winterfell). Ned clearly did not see his children as investments or marriage pawns to be used to bolster his own power which is pretty rare in Westeros. He was attentive and protective of them and of their right to be children. He was very hands-on when it comes to his boys’ education, and his teaching method was pretty good; he taught by example, for starters, and he explained why he does something and what meaning lies behind his actions.

And we can’t talk about the kind of man Ned is without talking about what he did for Jon. To be clear, I’m highly critical of how Ned handled things with Jon but I’m not unaware that Ned’s choice to give Jon a relatively good life with excellent education and a family that (mostly) loved him came at no small expense to Ned and his marriage. He did not have to raise Jon in Winterfell to honor his promise to Lyanna (as far as we know anyway since we don’t know the exact promise Ned made.) He could have let Jon disappear into the Neck with Howland, but he chose to assume responsibility for the kid himself. He chose to give Jon an education on par with Robb’s and raise his biological children to love their ostensible bastard brother. Not many men would choose to do so. I’ll give credit where credit is due.

So no, anon, I definitely do not think Ned is a failure, far from it. But he was still a Westerosi man raised in a patriarchal society and wasn’t immune to its rigid rules and prejudices. He was still someone who made mistakes with his kids - he simply did not have any sensible choice in some places in the narrative, which has to be taken into account when we discuss him, but we also have to acknowledge that he was someone who dealt with trauma and situations out of his control by avoiding thinking about them entirely. His protectiveness and desire to keep his children close, and keep them children, did impair a realistic planning for their future while his tendency to compartmentalize to deal with his trauma or guilt directly affected at least Jon and Sansa. But Ned, like everybody in either the fictional or the real world, succeeded and failed; he made good decisions and very very bad ones; he loved and championed and protected his children but also failed them. Being a good father or a good lord or a good person does not exempt him from making grievous mistakes, and those mistakes do not make him a failure or a bad person. It’s the totality of his actions and the context of said actions that determine the kind of person Ned was.