|
Post by Rosie on Nov 18, 2021 20:58:16 GMT 10
sometimes the attitude toward Roald's desire for peace irritates me a lot Snipped quote from devils's post on Tier-Ranking the Tortall Books. I didn't want to derail the other thread, but I do want to discuss this, and hopefully devils doesn't mind me snipping her quote. I'm going to preface this by saying, I don't like Roald. I don't think he's a good king. He's passive. Alanna flouts his quiet conservative values. He ignores her and hopes she goes away (and she does). Roger is exposed for trying to kill Roald's wife and son. Roald leaves his titles alone after Roger passes away, rather than give them to anybody in particular, and gives them back to him once he's resurrected. What sort of indication is this to the court? Roger actively tries to murder the royal family and there are no repercussions? He gets to start over and try again? Arguably, Roald is distressed at this point because Lianne is very unwell... but, you know, Roger is the one who made her unwell in the first place. Duke Gareth does practically every role in the palace. Roald cares so little about diplomacy and training the next generation of knights that he lets the same person oversee all these roles (and it happens to be his brother-in-law, how's that for nepotism?). All Roald wants is for the status quo to be upheld. He wants this so much he tries to give away land to Tusaine to put an end to the war. This land must belong to his nobles. Does he think Tusaine, having had such a concession, would have been content with the Drell Valley? No wonder there are multiple fiefs involved in treason towards the end of his reign. He makes no effort to marry his son off, the alliance with Josiane comes from Lianne. Jon isn't the perfect king, but he certainly takes a greater interest in actually running the kingdom than his father did.
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Nov 19, 2021 9:04:08 GMT 10
Rosie, no worries about snipping my post and I'm always happy when something I say sparks discussion, because discussing books is one of my favorite things! To elaborate on why I found the in universe attitude toward Roald's desire for peace irritating, I would say that there are ways to critique pacifism that I could be on board with as a reader as I am not a complete pacifist myself. For instance, a story that presents the narrative equivalent of Neville Chamberlain appeasing the Nazis, but I was never made to believe that Tusaine was the moral equivalent of Nazis, and therefore, I could not see Roald as the moral equivalent of Neville Chamberlain. Largely because I was never convinced that Tortall's war against Tusaine was a just war. A big reason for that was that I wasn't convinced that Tortall really had a better claim to the Drell Valley than Tusaine. My read of the text was very much that as recently as the time of Roald's father that land had belonged to Tusaine, which leads me to imagine that the Tusaine perspective would likely be that the Drell Valley is Tusaine land stolen by Jasson the Conqueror that should rightly be restored to Tusaine. If that's the Tusaine view, I can't call it completely unjustified or without merit. Especially when I consider Tortall's habit of poaching land from neighboring regions/countries and then basically blaming the residents of said regions/countries for daring to resist them. Like in Beka's era, the hill people are conquered, and when they resist being conquered, that gets them labeled as barbarians (the people doing the invading aren't barbarians; just the people who took issue with being invaded). Then in Jasson's time, the Bazhir desert is conquered, and when the Bazhir resist, they get treated as savages basically. So, within that broader context, I am not really too quick to regard Tusaine as wrong for being upset that their land got stolen. It just feels like Tammy wants me very much too uncritically and unquestioningly take the Tortallan view on every war and conquest, and the Tortallan view basically being that whatever Tortall happened to do in any given conquest or war was morally right and justified because Tortall did it and our protagonists happen to live in Tortall. Since I suspect if the setup for the war with Tusaine was reversed and it was Tusaine that had stolen land from Tortall a generation ago and Tortall wanted to reclaim the lost land, it would be treated in the text as morally justified and as some heroic endeavor. So I think there is a sort of double standard in terms of how Tammy treats Tortall's conquests and wars and how Tammy treats every other country's wars and conquests. Like Tortall waging war to steal land from the hill country people, the Bazhir, and Tusaine? Totally okay and no restitution is apparently owed. Tusaine waging war to reclaim land lost a generation ago? Well, those Tusaine are just evil, nasty folk who can't be trusted or negotiated with. So, that becomes kind of bleh to me. Now, Tammy can convince me that some of Tortall's wars are just wars. For example, the war against Scanra in the POTS books strikes me as a just one. Tortall is right not to want their land invaded and their children turned into little war machines, etc. So, if the war against Tusaine had come across to me as an actual just war, I'd be more okay with how the text paints Roald as basically being weak and ineffective at ruling Like if I am going to believe that Roald is a bad king or morally wrong just for not wanting war with Tusaine, I really need to be convinced by the text that the war is so just on Tortall's part that it is wrong to give anything other than whole-hearted support for the war. I think a big reason the text's attitude toward Roald's desire for peace with Tusaine irks me is just that it seems symptomatic of Tammy's general belief that Tortall is always right and justified and never should have to pay for doing anything wrong (but other countries can and should be made to pay when they do stuff wrong). That being said, I would not say that all other criticisms of Roald are invalid. I would agree that Roger's lands and titles should probably be distributed to others after his death, and should never have been given back to him after his resurrection. I also believe that Roger should've been executed as soon as he came back from the dead. I do think that sent a bad message to the court (treason won't really be punished) and that it also created the risk of Roger being someone for people to rally around in a revolt. Roger's royal blood plus his magic made him a very dangerous enemy, and he had already proved himself capable of treason once. So he should've been beheaded immediately if Roald was feeling merciful and drawn and quartered if he wasn't. And he probably shouldn't have even been buried in the Conte family crypts the first time he died. Like treason should've been enough to disown him. The most charitable interpretation I can have is that Roald was being merciful, but, frankly, there are times when a king and leader cannot be merciful and has to just embody that sword of justice, which is why I believe Roald did indeed fail in his responsibilities as king in that instance. The best I'd say for him in that situation is that he might have been trying to be a good man (I don't really see Roald as being a bad or cruel guy, and I think any evil of which he is guilty mostly just springs from inaction on his part rather than any sort of active attempt at maliciousness) but that didn't translate into him being a good king there. So, yeah, Roald definitely didn't act strongly and decisively enough in regard to Roger in my opinion. You definitely won't get an argument from me on that score. I would agree that Roald dumps too many governmental roles and responsibilities on Duke Gareth, and really Roald is lucky that Duke Gareth manages them all as well as he did and apparently maintained relative sanity in the process. And that it is his brother-in-law does make it the very definition of nepotism. Like in Roald's time in many ways, it looks like the Naxens actually rule the kingdom and are the power behind Roald's throne. Basically, yeah, if the joke about Jon's government is "it's rule by Jon and friends," I could see the punchline for Roald's reign being "it's government by Duke Gareth and King Roald needs to be shown where to sign the proclamations and fix his seal." I don't really think Roald is an example of how not to rule by nepotism. More like an example of how to let your brother-in-law rule for you and hope he is doing a good job. I also do agree that Roald should've arranged a marriage alliance for his only son and heir sooner. There really was no excuse for him not to. That's one of the reasons I don't have a problem with Jon arranging marriages for his own children. I think that is what a king in a quasi-medieval world should do. Although, honestly, the situation around arranged marriages in SOTL era is kind of strange in that I don't think any of Alanna's friends or year-mates are arranged to be married to anyone, whereas among Kel's friends Roald snd Clean both have betrothals. And Alanna is friends with the sons of some of the most important people in the realm. So it is sort of strange that in the more conservative era, arranged marriages seemed less of a thing, but in the more progressive era they are more commonplace. Overall, I just find politics in Tortall kind of strange. I don't know if Tammy is actually that good at writing politics, because she tends to write from a simplified black and white perspective in terms of politics, and a lot of times I am more interested in political writing that will explore the shades of gray and nuance. I think Tammy writes characters very well, but her political takes are lackluster to me and the preachier she gets, the more I want to dig in my heels and play devil's advocate as it were.
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Nov 19, 2021 22:54:55 GMT 10
A big reason for that was that I wasn't convinced that Tortall really had a better claim to the Drell Valley than Tusaine. My read of the text was very much that as recently as the time of Roald's father that land had belonged to Tusaine, which leads me to imagine that the Tusaine perspective would likely be that the Drell Valley is Tusaine land stolen by Jasson the Conqueror that should rightly be restored to Tusaine. If that's the Tusaine view, I can't call it completely unjustified or without merit. Especially when I consider Tortall's habit of poaching land from neighboring regions/countries and then basically blaming the residents of said regions/countries for daring to resist them. Like in Beka's era, the hill people are conquered, and when they resist being conquered, that gets them labeled as barbarians (the people doing the invading aren't barbarians; just the people who took issue with being invaded). Then in Jasson's time, the Bazhir desert is conquered, and when the Bazhir resist, they get treated as savages basically. So, within that broader context, I am not really too quick to regard Tusaine as wrong for being upset that their land got stolen. It just feels like Tammy wants me very much too uncritically and unquestioningly take the Tortallan view on every war and conquest, and the Tortallan view basically being that whatever Tortall happened to do in any given conquest or war was morally right and justified because Tortall did it and our protagonists happen to live in Tortall. Since I suspect if the setup for the war with Tusaine was reversed and it was Tusaine that had stolen land from Tortall a generation ago and Tortall wanted to reclaim the lost land, it would be treated in the text as morally justified and as some heroic endeavor. So I think there is a sort of double standard in terms of how Tammy treats Tortall's conquests and wars and how Tammy treats every other country's wars and conquests. Like Tortall waging war to steal land from the hill country people, the Bazhir, and Tusaine? Totally okay and no restitution is apparently owed. Tusaine waging war to reclaim land lost a generation ago? Well, those Tusaine are just evil, nasty folk who can't be trusted or negotiated with. So, that becomes kind of bleh to me. Snipping again, but I agree that Tusaine had a claim to at least part of the land (I'd be interested in knowing the history of it, whether it was land that was independently owned prior to Tusaine, belonged to Tortall at some point, or if it had always been Tusaine's, but as you say, we don't have the meat of the conflict). My issue would be Roald's timing, really. Alanna's fight with Dain happens because Tusaine had come for peace talks, though I think Alanna's sense is that they are feeling out Roald to see if he has the stomach for war. Of course, Alanna is training as a fighter and therefore biased in this sense. Naturally, there could have been talks that broke down because Duke Hilam wanted a war, but there's no sense that Roald put an offer on the table that was rejected (surely the reaction would be different if they'd been offered the right bank and invaded anyway) - instead, it's the concession he wants those fighting on his behalf to make. There's a strong sense in camp (I feel as though Myles shares it, but I could be wrong) that Tusaine wouldn't be satisfied with the right bank of the river, that they would then look to invade the left bank too. The concession feels mistimed to me, and he doesn't have (hasn't bothered to get?) the support of his men. I suppose since we've seen other examples of Roald's failure to deal with situations until he absolutely has to, I see this as another instance of it. Sure, you definitely have a point that Tortall is not always right, and I suspect that's why we get the 'mastermind' in Duke Hilam who is being nefarious. We can also throw in that Roger was destablising behind the scenes, I think because he wanted Jonathan in a vulnerable position, so room to suggest that he was meddling with Roald/the peace talks. This war clearly needed to be more than an aside in an already packed book, but at the end of the day, it's a catalyst for promoting Alanna's two romances, and this has made me remember how much I hate Jon asking Alanna if he can tell her to stay behind and safe during the battles. Agree with this!
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Nov 20, 2021 14:18:25 GMT 10
Rosie, I think this is turning into a super interesting conversation, so thank you for that:D My head canon has always been that some part of the land might have always been fought over by Tortall and Tusaine and the other part of the territory might really have been Tusaine land going back for a long time before Jasson conquered it. Which in my mind came to be part of Roald's reasoning for drawing his sort of metaphorical line in the sand where he did (and also rivers can make good natural borders between countries so I could get his logic that way) if he is wanting to keep land that Tortall has seen for a long time as historically theirs and willing to give back some territory claimed by his father much more recently. And hoping that Tusaine may be content to not be landlocked any more. In this way, I sort of put some of the blame for the conflict onto Jasson because I think he put Tusaine in a spot where they are naturally going to be seeking revenge (probably violent revenge--certainly our Tortallans would likely be out baying for Tusaine blood if the shoe were on the other foot) and they are landlocked, which gives them every reason to want to reclaim at least one side of the Drell. I do also have the sense that there might be a history of these sort of conflicts and wars between Tortall and Tusaine so I could imagine perhaps Roald is thinking that war hasn't been the answer in the past. That one war has only led to another war after it, so I could see where maybe he thinks it would be worth it to try a more diplomatic approach and see if Tortall and Tusaine can arrive at some more non-violent agreement about their borders. I guess I am not really convinced that the best answer to past wars is more war, so I sort of get why Roald is a bit hesitant to engage in another war and wants to try another alternative first. Alanna's fight with Dain is actually quite interesting to me in that I feel like the "young guns" (or young knights) on both sides of the Tortall and Tusaine divide are sort of spoiling for a fight and wanting to prove that they are stronger than the other. They want to prove their mettle against each other. And it strikes me that none of these young knights have really experienced warfare and the horror of it. They have been raised on the glamor of warfare and likely taught to revere and follow basically the same Code of Chivalry. They probably really only think of the glory and honor of war. Not of the suffering and ugliness of it. They haven't been in the trenches yet. Whereas I do wonder how much of the horrors and ugliness of warfare Roald might have seen as Jasson's son. Like if Roald has seen the ugliness and horror of warfare because his father was always engaging in it, I could see where he would want to be very sure that any war he engaged in was justified, because he would know how heavy a price to pay war is. Basically, I could see how a young Jon could be in a position where he could believe war is this glorious, honorable thing, because he has grown up in an era of peace, while Roald growing up in an era of war might be more inclined to see war as horrific and not really glorious at all. So I end up putting a lot of Jon and Alanna's perspective before the Tusaine war breaks out down to them being young and hot-headed/hot-blooded. They hadn't really had the chance to experience the horrors of war firsthand yet. Which is why I actually do like the parts of the Tusaine war where Alanna has to confront more of the horror and ugliness of war. Because I think that was the sort of horror and ugliness Roald was trying to prevent. I do think Alanna wasn't entirely wrong in her perception that the Tusaine ambassador and his party came more to see if Roald had the stomach for war as it were than to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict. I get the vibe that Roald was probably pretty sincere in his desire to negotiate a non-violent agreement with Tusaine (I don't know exactly what specifics Roald would've offered or if the talks broke down before specifics were even really presented since Alanna understandably isn't present for these sort of high level political conversations) but that the Tusaine ambassador did not have that same commitment to finding a non-violent solution. If I recall correctly, the Tusaine diplomat was even pretty rude about basically agreeing with Dain that Tortallan knights had grown soft and that Tusaine knights were better and whatnot. And it really does take two willing parties to negotiate a peace treaty. I believe Roald was willing, but Tusaine was not at that point. I do think Tusaine was a bit mistaken to believe Roald didn't have the stomach for warfare, because he does assemble his armies in defense of his realm, and I think after Alanna beats Dain Raold does to me seem to be presenting his knights and squires as being able to take on any Tusaine challenge if need be. So I suspect it may be a case where Roald isn't all enthusiastic for warfare and spoiling for a fight to prove his strength as it were, but that Roald might have been trying to communicate something along the lines of if Tortall is forced into a fight, Tortall will be able to marshall the resources to defend itself and to win the fight. I think it is possible to argue that Tusaine didn't get that message because they saw Roald as weak or whatever, but I also wonder if Tusaine would really have been deterred from attempting to challenge Tortall and Roald even if Roald had put on a big show of militaristic strength. If he had done that, Tusaine might have just interpreted that as more provocation from Tortall and more motivation for the upcoming fight. Like how a team might use press clippings of an opposing player trash-talking as bulletin board material. I guess for me I am not convinced that Roald acting in a war-like, aggressive manner would've prevented the war with Tusaine from breaking out. I actually think it would've probably guaranteed that war would've broken out and given the peace talks a zero percent chance of success. Maybe Roald taking a more diplomatic approach didn't work, but I think it was worth a try, and I kind of think it was to Tortall's advantage that Tusaine underestimated Tortall and Roald in the war. Like pride goes before a fall, and I would much rather fight a foe who underestimates me (so I can surprise them with my strength) than a foe I've already showed all my strengths to. I guess I am not really convinced that it would have been beneficial for Roald to project his strength in some sort of aggressive way when in a way Tusaine ended up underestimating Tortall and being the one to suffer for it with another loss in war (and no side of the Drell when they could've had one with diplomacy). I admit that I am sort of inclined to take the views of those fighting in the war with a bit of a grain of salt just because they are soldiers/warriors and not diplomats and because I feel like to the person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Basically, I understand why the soldiers and warriors believe that violence is the best answer and are frustrated that Roald isn't being aggressive enough for their tastes, but I also get that Roald may be trying not to escalate the conflict and may be hoping that once Tusaine experiences how terrible and draining warfare can be, Tusaine will be more willing to come to the negotiating table and reach a settlement. In general, I could see how Roald would be a king that warriors and soldiers might not like serving under because he is not always going conquering like Jasson and is not interested in projecting his and Tortall's strength in an aggressive way, but I don't know if that sentiment would be universal among Tortallans. Like it wouldn't surprise me if there are a good number of Tortallans who are happy that Roald is more inclined to peace than to war. Wars are expensive in terms of lives and resources so I could imagine that wars could take a toll on Tortall and Tortallans too. So I don't necessarily blame Roald if he is doing a lot of thinking about that toll and really weighing if it is worth paying. I could understand soldiers and warriors perhaps preferring to serve under a Conqueror, but for some regular citizens living under a Peacemaker might sometimes be nice. I suppose to me we are just hearing from the people who are most likely to be critical of Roald because he doesn't really want to engage in war, and war is the reason to be of those who fight. The Tortall books are very grounded in the warrior's perspective, but sometimes it would've been interesting to get input from other viewpoints to arrive at a more complete judgment of the situation, I think. That being said, I could see the argument for saying, "If you give Tusaine an inch, they will take a mile." So I don't necessarily think the the soldiers and warriors are entirely wrong. Just that maybe the situation is complicated enough and not so clearcut that I am going to label Roald as plainly wrong. I will admit that some of this could be my own bias as a reader since I tend to have an attitude of "war is really only morally acceptable when it is the lesser of two evils, and even then it shouldn't be entirely forgotten that it is an evil." So I could understand if Roald wanted to take some time to be convinced that war really was the lesser of the two evils before he went to war with Tusaine and if he wanted to try to find peaceful solutions first. I get that at least some Tortallans and Tusaine saw that as weakness but for me it didn't really come across as weakness. More as like a matter of principle. And my attitudes are going to naturally influence what I like and dislike in fictional depictions of warfare. I'd say my preferences for fictional depictions of warfare either run toward a conflict where there is a very clear and indefensible villain like the Empire in Star Wars. Then because the enemy is so plainly morally depraved I don't have to feel very guilty when I cheer as Luke blows up the Death Star. Because the Empire was evil enough to deserve it. Or, conversely, for conflicts where neither side is plainly in the right and both sides are kind of equally wrong, I like a little more of a grittier examination of warfare so I can nod my head solemnly and make the not too original observation, "Yes, war is indeed horrible." So, thinking about my tastes in this light, I suppose it isn't surprising that I enjoy the grittier moments of the Tusaine war where Alanna actually has to experience the horror of warfare firsthand, but that the moments where violence/warfare is idealized a bit more bug me because in this case Tusaine isn't quite an evil enough enemy that I am pulling for their total destruction. By contrast, Roger is a plainly evil enough villain that I can be all triumphant when Alanna runs him through with her blade. So I guess I am realizing just now that I like my stories either really gritty or really idealistic/simplistic. This actually explains so much about me as a reader that I am super glad I had this epiphany. Also, since this is really my personal preference/taste coming out, I can also see how what might irritate me as a reader wouldn't bother other readers. It really is all down to individual tastes and preferences, and my tastes and preferences are definitely not superior to anyone else's. They are just my own unique collection of aesthetic quicks and hodgepodge of moral philosophies. So what grates with me as a reader may not register as an annoyance to another reader. Duke Hilam's plotting was interesting, and I do kind of wish he and Tusaine politics had been developed a bit more. Like I think it was said that the Tusaine king was mainly interested in enjoying his pleasure gardens, so in a way, it could be that neither the king of Tortall nor the king of Tusaine really wanted war. Which would make the war more tragic in that sense. And you are right that there does seem to be that vibe of Roger plotting with Tusaine to at least some degree. I do wish that Roger's complicity with Tusaine could've been explored a bit more as well. But I do understand that the SOTL books were limited in space, and Tammy had a lot of content she wanted to fit in and a lot of growth that she wanted to show within Alanna, so I get why that couldn't happen. And I think the main point from Tammy's standpoint was probably for the war to be a catalyst for Alanna's growth as a character and the development of her romances. So in that sense the war with Tusaine did its job. On a somewhat tangential note, I also kind of wonder if part of the reason Roald is perceived as "weak" in the books is that he doesn't really conform to his society's definition of what strength and masculinity and kingship (and I think all these three are probably linked in the minds of many people in universe) ought to be. Like he would prefer peace to war as seen in the Tusaine instance and inclines more to mercy than justice as we see with the Roger returning from the dead example. Like the general perception in universe of Roald if he were female might have been, "What a gentle and forgiving person to be protected at all costs!" But since he was male, I feel like the in universe judgment of him ended up being that he was weak and not really strong or decisive enough to be king. Even his title "The Peacemaker" sort of embodies more of the feminine ideal of queenship. In our own medieval world at any rate, peacemaking was often the job of queens as was appealing for mercy. Whereas the king was more expected to represent justice and the sword. So to the medieval mind maybe Roald makes a great queen but a not so good king? I guess I ultimately just end up feeling sorry for Roald a lot of the time and so I don't tend to judge him super harshly. Especially since most of my worst criticisms of him come from later in his reign when I think he was probably extremely depressed to the point where he was ultimately suicidal in a world where obviously he wouldn't be able to get the psychological care/treatment I believe he needed. For me, I think it also makes a difference that I do picture him as being a very gentle, loving husband with Lianne and can't imagine him ever really being too harsh with Jon. If anything, I could envision him as being a bit too indulgent with Jon (perhaps Jon's lack of a betrothal is a result of that?) which I could sort of understand given that Jon was an only child and it was so hard for Lianne to give birth to him. If I saw him as an abuser (like I think Thayet's father was) or as being a negligent parent a la Lord Alan, I would definitely feel way differently about him and wouldn't ever really defend him in discussions. I suppose some could see his suicide and not betrothing Jon as enough to make him a bad father, but personally I don't tend to view him in that light. Like I could imagine some of his softer/gentler virtues making him a pretty good "family man." I do like to imagine that Jon learned some lessons about being a good father and husband from Roald, but that is mostly head canon. I also guess that I do tend to think of him as caring about his people and realm until later in his reign when I think depression set in and it became hard for him to care about anything at all because he was probably so trapped in his own misery and despair. Like I could see his aversion to warfare being a natural outgrowth of him not wanting to see his people suffer and die in warfare because warfare is pretty ugly and terrible and often not really a moral good. So I could imagine Roald being like "I can sleep at night and look in a mirror just fine because I don't constantly get my people killed in needless, self-aggrandizing wars like my father, and I'm a pretty loving, gentle man with my wife and son." I do think that Roald isn't a natural leader like Jon is (Jon has that charisma, confidence, and charm from birth in my opinion) and doesn't really have as much interest in ruling although I think he has good intentions (though I suppose the counter to that is the road to hell is paved with good intentions). He also doesn't seem to have Jon's innate strength in terms of determination and resilience. So I wouldn't argue with that assessment of yours from the opening post, Rosie. I do believe that Tortallan history will probably be kinder in how it remembers Jon's reign than Roald's but I suppose only in universe time can tell that.
|
|
oskarshai
Message Runner
Justice for Mammoth
Posts: 47
Gender: Other
|
Post by oskarshai on Nov 20, 2021 15:40:59 GMT 10
Extremely cool meta, you guys! I don't really have very much of substance to add to the conversation, but it's really fun and interesting reading all of your thoughts. I would agree that Roald's actions don't make much sense from a political standpoint (e.g. letting Roger live and giving back his property and titles, or not arranging a marriage for Jon at an early age, as you each mentioned) – I think this is a function of SOTL being a story that is only very peripherally about politics, as well as Roald being a character without a ton of depth or thought put into him at the time outside of his basic utility to the plot. But I kind of agree with you, devilinthedetails – it oddly makes me feel a bit warmer and more sympathetic toward him that he's such an inept ruler, because the fact of hereditary rule is that sometimes someone is going to end up in charge who is very unsuited to their job, and there is usually no fast, easy or bloodless way for power to change hands. Part of me actually wishes a bit that the story had gone more into the idea that Jonathan might not have been a perfect fit for his role as king or questioned the concept of divine right or the inherent worthiness of a ruling line, which a lot of historical-ish fantasy stories just kind of take on faith, but is not really true to life and has more roots in political propaganda and sometimes religious dogma than fact. (That the protagonists in these books, when put in positions of power or authority, tend to just happen to be perfectly, serendipitously and sometimes even divinely suited to wield that power and authority is an element that's always bugged me a bit.) I do think that Tammy grew more comfortable writing politics over time, as POTS and Tricksters both feel more grounded to me in that respect (POTS because of its focus on centrism and the way conservatism and progressivism realistically interact within a fundamentally conservative and hierarchical social structure, and Tricksters because of its – slightly – more cynical take on hereditary rule and imperialism). But it's definitely an area that continues to be problematic in the later books, because she can't just retcon out the events of earlier ones.
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Nov 22, 2021 2:03:28 GMT 10
oskarshai, thank you, and thanks for sharing your thoughts as well! I think you're right that SOTL is only peripherally about politics, which sort of makes sense since Alanna is not particularly interested in politics as a protagonist and SOTL was meant to be more sword and sorcery and quest type fantasy than political fantasy. I also think you're right that Roald wasn't a character Tammy intended to explore in depth and more acted according to what would be convent for the plot. Like it would be convenient for Roger to be back from the dead and not executed right away, so that is what Roald decided to do. It's also true that the reality of hereditary rule is that some people who are pretty incompetent at ruling are going to inherit the "right to rule" as it were and even worse there will be some outright evil people who inherit the "right to rule" as well. The latter could've been the case if Jon had never been born, and Roger had inherited the throne, for example. Hereditary rule is very much a "luck of the draw" and "roll the dice" sort of thing. It's really just "luck of the draw" that Jon doesn't have Ralon of Malven's personality or that Jon's own son Roald wasn't born with Joren of Stone Mountain's attitude. Hereditary rule is a very chancy thing in that way, so the Tortallans basically just have to hold their breath and hope for the best whenever they roll the dice. I am also with you in wishing the books had questioned the concept of divine right to rule a bit more because divine right to rule is going to inherently have some pitfalls and inequities associated with it. So it would have been cool to see that explored and engaged with a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Nov 22, 2021 22:06:55 GMT 10
I'm also really enjoying this discussion - nice to think over why one holds certain views. On a somewhat tangential note, I also kind of wonder if part of the reason Roald is perceived as "weak" in the books is that he doesn't really conform to his society's definition of what strength and masculinity and kingship (and I think all these three are probably linked in the minds of many people in universe) ought to be. Like he would prefer peace to war as seen in the Tusaine instance and inclines more to mercy than justice as we see with the Roger returning from the dead example. I have to disagree here, and I'm going to throw in that the only time in his reign that we see him with any sort of attempt at peace is when Tusaine come to talk, and those talks collapse (and then Jon wins him the right to try again). We don't, to be fair, have any idea of what Roald puts forward in the talks, but we do know that Myles and Duke Gareth aren't impressed with his attempts. I would argue that Myles is presented to us as the antithesis of a soldier, plus he is Roald's spymaster. His views show that Roald is naive at best when dealing with Tusaine, "Gareth and I tried to convince Roald that Hilam would do this". Roald doesn't seem to pay any mind to his advisers. As Clausewitz has it, war is a trinity where you have an element of rational calculation along with the violence - it is not the opposite to but a contiuation of diplomacy when the other avenues have failed. Roald's suggestion of surrender is not achievable without bloodshed. My view is that Roald gets the moniker of 'Peacemaker' because he's not Jasson, and not because he earns it off his own merit. His proposed surrender of the right bank of the Drell is short-sighted at best, and he seems to dig his heels in, to the extent that he is "not pleased" when his son finds a way to end the war which avoids further bloodshed. Surely, this should be Roald's ideal, but it seems more important to him that everybody, including Jon, toes the line. I actually view him as an absent father, Jon seems to have a long leash so long as Roald doesn't notice him acting out. Jon seems a lot closer to his mother than his father. There's none of the same bitterness Alanna experiences towards her father, but I never thought they had a good relationship. We see Roald react to his father, I think Jonathan's reign is reacting to Roald's "beneficent neglect" as Myles puts it - we know Roald's lack of action leads to unrest in the border fiefs, and Tusaine, Galla, and Scanra are all eyeing up the vulnerabilities. Jonathan's son Roald is therefore free to be a more peaceful king, assuming he wishes to be, because Jonathan has laid out a position of strength and unity in his reign, both by developing Tortall from within like the Royal University and allowing Wyldon to overhaul the knight training, and by fostering diplomatic relations from without, by alliances. He's not perfect, but he's leaving a better legacy. Also on the point of divine right that you and oskarshai both reference, the interesting thing here is that we have divinities actively involved - Tortall could stomach Roald's rule, but the Goddess takes an interest in guiding Jon to the throne. It's a matter of helping Jon become king as much as stopping Roger, as I see it. I fully agree that the books are limited and that Tammy's interest in politics develops later, but I think Roald is deficient and lacking in ways that are the making of Jonathan.
|
|
|
Post by devilinthedetails on Dec 6, 2021 13:53:34 GMT 10
Rosie , Sorry for the late reply. Holiday season keeping me busy! I tend to think that most of Roald's efforts to create peace would've occurred early in his reign so that was probably why Alanna didn't know or care about them. Plus, Alanna spent most of her childhood away from court (her never spending any time at court was part of why she could pretend to be a boy and train as a knight) and to me didn't come across as that interested in politics when she was at court either as a child/teenager or as an adult. So I assumed that Roald engaged in other negotiations and acts of diplomacy but we really only heard about the Tusaine one as it was relevant for the plot and it got more attention because it was the one that fell apart and created a conflict for Alanna and Tortall to fight in. I would agree that I think Tammy probably wanted readers to view Myles as the antithesis of a warrior/soldier, but my problem with that is Myles is a knight who spends his time training more knights. For all that he might grumble about the Code of Chivalry, he still is actively involved in perpetuating the system that is churning out more knights. Myles might be a squeaky wheel, in other words, but he is still a wheel on a car doing what wheels on a car do albeit more noisily than the average wheel. I guess I never really got the impression that Myles was Roald's Spymaster. I thought Jon had appointed him to that position largely as a public face for the role so George could do a lot of the work in secret. My view of Myles's role at court during Roald's time was that he didn't have a particularly high status. That he was kind of just another knight who was maybe even looked down upon by others for being the court drunk and a bit rumpled in his appearance all the time. I also tend to take Myles's perspective on things with a grain of salt. His view of the Bazhir during Alanna's trip to the desert in First Adventure is pretty full of cringe. He tells Alanna the "Bazhir are unusual" and "Martin does have reason to resent them." He also paints the Bazhir who are loyal to Roald trying "not to cause any trouble" and "renegade" ones who won't accept Roald as king as making "life difficult." It apparently never enters his mind that the Bazhir aren't any more unusual than Tortallans, the Bazhir are actually the ones with fair grounds to resent Martin and all other Tortallan invaders/colonizers, the Tortallans are the ones causing all the problems for the Bazhir by stealing Bazhir land, and that the Tortallans are really the ones making life difficult for everybody since if the Tortallans left the desert, there is no reason that the Bazhir couldn't go back to governing themselves just fine. The only ones being troublesome are the Tortallans basically, but Myles doesn't see it that way because he has a warped, Tortallan-centric perspective. So I guess I didn't find it surprising that this guy also thought that negotiating with the Tusaine was wrong and impossible. Because that's the pattern I think Tammy creates too. It is short-sighted and terrible for Roald to consider giving Tusaine back the bank of the Drell that is portrayed as historically Tusaine's as recently as Jasson's conquest and it is also apparently impossible to imagine a free desert under Bazhir self-rule. This despite the fact that Tammy, for instance, doesn't have trouble imagining a quasi-medieval world with reliable contraception. Tammy could just have easily created a situation where it was feasible for Tortall to compromise with Tusaine and surrender some of the ill-gotten gains from Jasson's conquest, but she didn't. Same as she could just as easily have created a situation where Jon as king would grant the Bazhir their independence and desert back, but she chose not to do that, and instead have Jon rule the Bazhir as Voice. And I do find both instances problematic and frustrating from a narrative perspective. I also think that in Roald we aren't getting a realistic portrayal and critique of pacifism so much as we are getting a caricature of pacifism much as in POTS we get more of a caricature of conservatism than actual conservatism. It is the caricature of pacifism that annoys me almost as much as the caricature of conservatism we get treated to in the POTS books. The caricature of conservatives we get in POTS tends to make me more sympathetic than I would otherwise be to the conservatives. Likewise, the way Tammy exaggerates the folly and naivety of Roald's pacifism (if it can really even be called pacifism since he does end up fighting a war) makes me again put more effort into seeing things from his perspective than I would otherwise. I never really had an issue with Roald being mad at Jonathan because to me Jon committed a pretty major act of disobedience and went directly against his father's orders in what I would consider to be a matter of crucial military/foreign policy. I could understand Roald seeing that as very much undermining his authority. I got why Jonathan acted as he did (especially since he knew Alanna was a girl), but I also didn't find it surprising that Roald would be mad at him for what he did. I don't know that it is really unfair of Roald to expect that his son and heir will toe the line in this regard, so I don't really have a problem with him being angry at Jon for not doing so. Certainly, if Jon got mad at one of his own children for an act of defiance on a similar scale, I wouldn't really hold it against Jon as a character. I would agree that I think Jon's reign is something of a reaction against Roald's reign same as I think Roald's reign was a reaction against Jasson's. I did tend to see Jon's reaction as being more against Roald's leadership/kingship style than against Roald as a person if that makes sense. That being said, I do wonder if Roald did manage to pass on some of his desire for peace and valuing of diplomacy onto Jon because I don't think Jon is actually some warmonger (unlike Jasson, who I think very much was a warmonger). The biggest conflicts of Jon's reign seem to be against Scanra (and I would consider the Scanran war a pretty just war) and the one with the Immortals, which also seemed to involve some negotiation with Immortals that could be communicated with, but Jon doesn't seem to be leading Tortall on any wars of conquest a la Jasson (which I count to Jon's credit since I regard Jasson's wars of conquest as bad). Jon's approach to the Bazhir is also much less militaristic and more diplomatic (in terms of becoming the Voice instead of trying to conquer the desert by force) than Jasson's or really Roald's since Roald doesn't seem to have made much effort to negotiate with the Bazhir. And Jon does arrange those marriage alliances for his children, which I would say are more about diplomacy/negotiation than warfare/conquest. In some ways, I think Jon is a better diplomat/negotiator than Roald might have been, which makes me think he probably does value diplomacy/negotiation, and that his reaction against his father is more in terms of how strong/decisive a leader should be and how much change should be valued versus the status quo. Hill country in general seems to be prone to bandits and famine so I didn't necessarily blame Roald for unrest there more than I'd blame another Tortallan king. If there was more elaboration on why fiefs like Eldorne and Tirragen decided to rebel, I might believe Roald was more at fault, but it wouldn't really surprise me if this is somewhat of a case of Tortallans getting pushback for conquering the hill country in which case it wasn't really a situation created by Roald and more of a situation created over generations by a Tortallan desire to conquer land that does not actually belong to them. So I could imagine it as a case of long-term resentments Tortall has built up coming back to bite them. I got the impression from the books that Tortall might have a long history of conflict with Tusaine, Galla, and Scanra, and that Jasson's conquests in particular might have created some bad blood to add to that history, so I didn't really see it as unique to Roald's rule that Tusaine, Galla, and Scanra might be sniffing out vulnerabilities. I just saw it as an indication that Tortall has a history of war with pretty much all its neighboring countries, which might point to Tortall not actually being that great a neighbor from a historical standpoint. So I didn't tend to blame Roald more than the average Tortallan ruler for that situation since it seemed like an issue that stretched over generations, and I actually tended to blame Jasson more for the situation since he gave all the surrounding countries plus the Bazhir excellent reason to hate the Tortallans and totally be out for Tortallan blood. I guess I don't really see Roald as being a bad king until the end of his reign, when I think depression kicks in and might have a negative ability on his judgment/ability to rule especially since it would've been untreated and undiagnosed depression, so much as being a kind of mediocre king. Jon I would rate as a good to great king, so definitely a step up from Roald. I think Jon has done quite a bit to strengthen Tortall and made some important reforms and changes like founding the Royal University as you mentioned. And I do think his legacy will be more memorable and better than Roald's. I would actually agree that I think Roald is deficient and lacking in ways that make Jon a good to great king, so we may not be that far apart in our views, Rosie . I think I just might be more sympathetic to Roald as a character and more critical/harsher on Myles, for example. And I will admit that a lot of my views are based in my own head canon, so I don't necessarily expect other fans to agree with them.
|
|