(urth) Honor
Chris
rasputin_ at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 23 11:48:06 PST 2005
> >I disagree. Able's might doesn't make him right or wrong. It gives
> >him the power to enforce what he thinks is right, but if he's wrong,
> >then he's wrong no matter how strong he is. And in this case, I think
> >he is right, at least in his judgment, if not in the severity of his
> >actions.
>
>Ah, but that flies in the face of the very basis of the concept of "trial
>by
>combat" in all its variations. From Lancelot's defense of Guinevere to all
>those childish, petulant, indefensible defenses against all comers of that
>mountain pass by Able in TWK, the underlying assumption is that might does,
>in fact, make right.
I would also add that this does not seem to be an unconditional rule, there
seem to be explicit and deliberate conditions based on social status. This
is another aspect of the general observation that has already been made
about the oddness of the behavior of certain characters that seems to be
related to their expected social role (see: Idnn, etc.)
In Able's case, this seems to dictate that when people present him with an
opposing attitude, some (those of high birth or station) are to be reasoned
with and others are to be met with force. If I'm reading it correctly, this
isn't quite the simple "might makes right" of the schoolyard bully (though
it may well be related). There are times when it might be easier to cajole a
churl into compliance rather than forcing them (and thereby gaining their
enmity); but to do so would mean not being regarded as a knight, because
knights are by definition above this and *demand* loyalty and obedience
without question. Able's treatment of those in a lower station is, I think,
meant to be problematic: Able could be a better *person* by being a worse
*knight*.
I say this not because it makes Able any more appealing of a character, but
because I think it makes deeper sense of Able's modes of interaction with
various characters.
> >It's sad that the stable hands are slaves and blind, but does that
> >mean they are no longer moral agents, no longer capable of being right
> >or wrong? Were they not wrong to neglect the animals?
They were certainly wrong to neglect the animals. The fact that they were
mistreated - and that they were *forced* against their own will into a
situation where the animals were helplessly dependent on them - does not
negate the fact that those animals *did* need caring for and they *could*
have done so if they had chosen to. This isn't that uncommon of a vice:
people who are treated badly have a tendency to treat others badly in turn.
This is a chain of abuse that eats away at the character of each person on
down the line. (Now this is starting to sound like an essay on my place of
employment).
Able wanted the animals to be treated better, which is good. Able may have
even wanted the stable hands to be better people, people who aren't so
desensitized that they don't care about the suffering of those under their
care - and this too would be good. But Able's adherence to his social role
is locked in; he certainly isn't going to come in and beg the stablehands,
or bribe them, or give them a moral speech, as we might be inclined to. His
way of dealing with the situation is what we consider to be bad.
What gives one pause for thought is that his way of dealing with the
situation may in fact have been effective in a situation in which a more
modern way of doing things would not. It seems unlikely that the stablehands
would have responded to fine words and sentiments.
>Look at the second paragraph of that Tolkien essay again. Like Wolfe, I
>grew
>up in Texas in a time when the code of conduct espoused there was nothing
>exceptional; it was the norm. It's part of the reason I detest Able.
>Substitute stables and brown-eyed horses with lavatories and dirty toilet
>bowls and the issue of moral accountability falls away.
Moral accountability is precisely what you shouldn't remove here; Able did
not come in and upbraid the floor-sweeping or toilet-cleaning slaves. The
stablehands did not merely fail to clean toilet bowls, and the treatment of
the horses was not at that point a hypothetical question. The animals *were*
mistreated, and in bad shape.
>Sure, horses need food and water to survive, but no one has a *right* to
>force another to do
>it.
I'm not entirely sure how to interpret this. I agree that they shouldn't
have been placed in that situation. On the other hand choosing to let the
animals suffer rather than taking care of them is inhumane, and I think that
even a modern society would judge and/or punish them for that.
More information about the Urth
mailing list