Past the Point of No Return?

[Rosie]

Are there any 'baddies' you think could have been redeemed in Tortall? Could Alex have done with two extra hours of Ethics instead of one? If Roger had taken the throne, would he have been a kind and benevolent king? What if Tunstall had been sweet on somebody with low prospects?

We see some people change and adapt in Tortall (Wyldon, Zahir), and then that others like Joren aren't able to. When do you think the point of no return was for these characters? Would Alex just have remained one of the gang without Roger as a (non-knight) knight-master?

[devilinthedetails]

Excellent question, Rosie. I think the Tortall books for the most part fit into the mold of classic fantasy stories in that the villains are often easy to identify and they tend to have very simplistic motives such as a desire for power that don't get explored in depth. This may sound like a criticism but there can also be a sort of mythical appeal to that, at least in my opinion. However, when the motives of villains--why exactly they seek power so desperately, for example--don't get examined in detail, it can be harder to comment on whether they could have been redeemed or what their point of no return might have been.

With Alex, I will say that I was never really satisfied with how his downfall was written in the Song of the Lioness books since his motives for committing high treason always felt extremely vague to me. In Hand of the Goddess, I got the distinct vibe that Roger was not only manipulating Alex psychologically and emotionally but also might have been bewitching him magically in, for instance, the duel with Alanna where Alex injures her and Myles has to come to the rescue. In Hand of the Goddess, I didn't really see Alex as culpable for what happened in the duel with Alanna since it didn't seem that he was in control of himself but was under Roger's magical influence. In Lioness Rampant, the only explanation for Alex's treason seems to be that he has this immense drive to be the best--to prove he is better than Alanna--but that's a really weak motivation for high treason. Alex could easily just challenge her to a duel or something without needing to commit high treason. Alex is ambitious and mysterious, but I never saw him as evil. I just saw him as emotionally and psychologically manipulated by Roger, magically controlled by Roger, and generally groomed by a villain when he was a teenager. Roger's relationship with Alex only gets more creepy the older I get. It gives me shudders whenever I think about it. I think if Roger had never entered his life, even if Alex didn't remain part of Alanna's friendship group (though the first Alanna book does imply that Roger is keeping Alex away from his friends, sort of isolating Alex from his support network to force him to rely on Roger), I think he still could have been a successful knight who served Tortall well.

Roger himself I could see being almost like an Ozorne if he came to the throne. I could see him being charming but also very paranoid. I also cannot see him as benevolent and I imagine that he would never feel true concern for his people. The fact that his first attack (that we know of) when he was seeking the throne was a Sweating Sickness that wiped out a significant portion of innocent civilians in Corus is extremely telling, in my view. The scale of that evil is pretty unfathomable to me, and that was what he was willing to do to innocent people to get the throne. I can only imagine what horrors he would do in order to maintain power once he had it. The Sweating Sickness in itself would be a point of no return for me.

With Tunstall, I tend to think he would have been fine if he had been involved with someone from a similar social class as himself or if the culture around him were more accepting of relationships that crossed class lines. Tunstall's downfall says a lot about the social stratification in the world he was living in and how oppressive it could be. So, yeah, to me, Tunstall definitely wasn't irredeemable, and honestly he was one of my favorite characters in the Beka books. His story and relationship with Sabine strike me as quite tragic.

Joren seemed to have strong negative influences from his family (particularly from his father and uncle, it appeared to me in Squire) and also to just be raised in a culture where violence is often tolerated or even encouraged, so to some extent, I am sure Joren was a product of his environment. However, what jumps out to me about Joren is how obsessed he got with destroying Kel and how willing he was to hurt others in order to undermine Kel. To me, his point of no return was probably when he arranged for Lalasa to be kidnapped. That decision was morally repugnant. Wyldon's reaction to Lalasa's kidnapping is to me very telling of the difference between Joren and Wyldon. Wyldon is conservative but he also has a deep sense of honor and fairness so no way is he kidnapping a maid, but Joren seems to hate Kel and the change she embodies so much that he will hurt anyone to try to stop Kel and the change she represents. I also think it is helpful to consider how Zahir and even possibly Garvey and Quinden sort of grow out of needing to bully Kel (even if they never love the idea of lady knights, their whole purpose doesn't seem to be to make Kel miserable) while Joren seems to become more unhinged in his need to ruin her. I think Joren could have been redeemed if he was willing to grow up as we see some of his friends do but he never wanted to grow out of his hatred; he wanted to grow into it, so he did.

[Rosie]

The thing with Alex and Tunstall is that they seem like characters who could go either way, but are they? They are both quite willing to kill for their own advancement. How much of that is situational, and how much is a fatal character flaw? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm wondering if they'd have fallen to something else, if not the things they fell to in the books. I take your point about Roger being manipulative, of course. Maybe that's also how he got a squire despite not actually being a knight.

[devilinthedetails]

Jun 1, 2018 23:33:28 GMT 10 Rosie said:

The thing with Alex and Tunstall is that they seem like characters who could go either way, but are they? They are both quite willing to kill for their own advancement. How much of that is situational, and how much is a fatal character flaw? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm wondering if they'd have fallen to something else, if not the things they fell to in the books. I take your point about Roger being manipulative, of course. Maybe that's also how he got a squire despite not actually being a knight.

I guess a lot of these questions go back to nature versus nurture and choice versus destiny debates. I think a big issue for me in evaluating Alex and Tunstall is that their betrayals aren't in my opinion particularly well-explored. I found Alex's motivations for treason in Lioness Rampant extremely vague (wanting to prove you are the best swordsman seems a really flimsy motivation for high treason unless Alex is a more deranged character than earlier books would have us believe) especially if he is not just under Roger's manipulation as he mainly seems to be in Hand of the Goddess. Tunstall's motivations are perhaps explained a little better, but I'm still not entirely sure his betrayal is consistent with his earlier characterizations in Terrier and Bloodhound. I suppose to me they come across as characters that could go either way and why they end up going bad could have been written in more depth.

It is true that Alex and Tunstall are quite willing to kill for their own advancement, and that is a troubling trait, though I wonder how much of that might be a product of being in very militaristic cultures (the Dogs and knighthood, respectively) where there is a tendency to glorify violence and to assume a might makes right thinking. There is a broad acceptance of bullying (hazing) and police brutality (hitting people with batons, etc) even by characters that are pretty much portrayed as unquestionably good. So I think Tortall (and especially certain cultures within it) have a violence problem that is probably very believable in a quasi-medieval world but likely also contributes to the development of people like Alex and Tunstall who are okay with killing to advance themselves. A lot of the way they behave might just be a sort of extension of the violence that is lauded in their society. To me, it kind of seems like if they hadn't committed treason, society would have probably celebrated them. Alex seemed to be on the path of becoming a respected swordsman, and Tunstall was a well-regarded Dog, so society mainly only had a problem with their violence and ambition when it turned to treason. Treason seemed to be the point where they were seen as "bad." This doesn't necessarily let Alex or Tunstall off the hook, but I feel like the villains Tortall creates tell us a lot about the flaws in Tortallan society that we can even see in the heroines like Alanna and Beka.

[mageprincess]

It's been quite some time since I read SOTL, so I'm not sure I can comment too much on Alex, but I always just kind of figured that Roger had simply manipulated a teenage boy with high ambition and a fierce competitive streak into doing what he wanted. He admired and looked up to Roger so fiercely that by the time Alex was an adult he was so completely loyal to Roger that it turned him into what he was in Lioness Rampart. Alex's character development always makes me sad, because the kid he starts out is in ATFA is the kind of person I would be attracted to IRL and want to be around, snarky but loyal to his friends, and a lot of fun to be around. Keeping in mind that I was 11 when I first read Alanna, so these kids were the same age as me or thereabouts at the time.

Tunstall is the one that broke me. The thing about Tunstall is that he was fundamentally a good person. He knew he was doing the wrong thing but in his mind he was doing it for a good reason. it didn't matter to him that Sabine would hate it, he thought what he was doing would help him keep her. But before that, Tunstall was a good man, and good at his job. It took a lot to corrupt someone like him, I think, but prodding his insecurities about Sabine was a good way to get to him. And as far as I recall, he tried to back out multiple times. Its certainly not an excuse for the things that he did, but I think if he'd done things differently, I think he might've been redeemed.

[devilinthedetails]

Jun 7, 2018 17:55:02 GMT 10 mageprincess said:

It's been quite some time since I read SOTL, so I'm not sure I can comment too much on Alex, but I always just kind of figured that Roger had simply manipulated a teenage boy with high ambition and a fierce competitive streak into doing what he wanted. He admired and looked up to Roger so fiercely that by the time Alex was an adult he was so completely loyal to Roger that it turned him into what he was in Lioness Rampart. Alex's character development always makes me sad, because the kid he starts out is in ATFA is the kind of person I would be attracted to IRL and want to be around, snarky but loyal to his friends, and a lot of fun to be around. Keeping in mind that I was 11 when I first read Alanna, so these kids were the same age as me or thereabouts at the time.

Tunstall is the one that broke me. The thing about Tunstall is that he was fundamentally a good person. He knew he was doing the wrong thing but in his mind he was doing it for a good reason. it didn't matter to him that Sabine would hate it, he thought what he was doing would help him keep her. But before that, Tunstall was a good man, and good at his job. It took a lot to corrupt someone like him, I think, but prodding his insecurities about Sabine was a good way to get to him. And as far as I recall, he tried to back out multiple times. Its certainly not an excuse for the things that he did, but I think if he'd done things differently, I think he might've been redeemed.

Good post. I think Alex intrigues me because in the second Alanna book, it seems pretty clear to me that Roger is manipulating Alex emotionally and magically (and we have some hints of what strikes me as grooming behavior Roger does to Alex in the first book such as separating Alex from Alex's friends, who would be his support network). In the fourth book, I felt there was a bit more ambiguity. On one hand, some of Alex's and Roger's interaction seemed as if Roger was manipulating Alex, but Alex also seems to be internally and almost manically motivated by the need to prove that he is the better fencer than Alanna apparently to the point of treason. With Alex, he seems manipulated and groomed by Roger but also that he has this incredible and irrational need to be the best (which maybe is encouraged by Roger, but I don't know if can be entirely attributed to Roger). Alex is very much an enigma in that way. I remember that scene in Lioness Rampant where Roger alludes to knowing exactly what Alex is after, and I think that if that concept were explored more clearly in that book, maybe Alex's downfall would be more understandable to me. That could be a place where the editing that was done to make the series into young adult books kind of hurt plot and characterization. It's one aspect where it feels like there is a lot to explore beneath the tip of the iceberg if you want to venture into the depths.

I'm like you in that I really liked Alex from his first introduction. I loved the fact that he was a bit inscrutable and inclined to sarcasm. That scene in the first Alanna book where he and Gary are sitting with Alanna on the bench early in her page training, describing how hard they have to work every day, is always just very awesome and funny to me. I think maybe that is the moment where Alex hooked me, and I wanted to see more of him. I think I also related to Alex since he was the only character who seemed to have a problem with Myles's drinking, and I'm the child of an alcoholic so my feelings for Myles have always been mixed. I see the good in Myles but also can't laud the tendency to be drunk especially around impressionable teenagers. So, yeah, I never had a problem with Alex calling out Myles for being the court drunk and kind of wished that Tammy swept it under the carpet less because I think we are meant to see Myles as this un-complicatedly good character, and, well, I don't agree that he is that.

Your description of Tunstall is very moving. I could see him as a good person who gets manipulated into doing something that he recognizes as wrong but is able to convince himself is for some greater good. Saying that he was corrupted by repeated prodding of his insecurities is a great way of phrasing it. It's a shame that Tunstall and Sabine's relationship couldn't have existed in a more accepting environment. If it had, I don't think we ever see Tunstall the traitor:(

[Rosie]

I take your points about Myles, but honestly, I always assume he played up to the role so he could collect information as Spymaster. Wasn't there a point where Alanna helps him back to his room, and she realises he wasn't actually all that drunk?

I'm willing to believe Tunstall is a victim of a patriarchal society which expects men to be able to support women, even in the case of lady knights, even when Sabine could not have given two figs. But I can't believe the twist was planned prior to Mastiff.

[devilinthedetails]

Jun 8, 2018 2:35:03 GMT 10 Rosie said:

I take your points about Myles, but honestly, I always assume he played up to the role so he could collect information as Spymaster. Wasn't there a point where Alanna helps him back to his room, and she realises he wasn't actually all that drunk?

I'm willing to believe Tunstall is a victim of a patriarchal society which expects men to be able to support women, even in the case of lady knights, even when Sabine could not have given two figs. But I can't believe the twist was planned prior to Mastiff.

Interesting point about maybe Myles pretending to be drunk in order to spy on people. For some reason, I always got the impression that Myles was appointed the Spymaster by Jon when Jon came to the throne (I don't know why I thought this beyond the fact that there seemed to be a general changing of the guard with Gary taking over as Prime Minister, Alanna as Champion, and Raoul as Commander of the Own, etc). Now I kind of wish Tammy had said when Myles was made Spymaster since that potentially could influence my perception of Myles. It is neat all the different head canons and interpretations that can develop, though.

With regard to Alex, I think it's just that in the past (not on this thread), I've seen the fact that Alex didn't approve of Myles being a drunk and would argue with Myles pointed to as proof that he was evil or destined to fall from the beginning, and I'd have major issues if Alex's qualms about a teacher being (or appearing to be) drunk all the time were treated as a big character flaw on his part because to me it's much more of a character strength than a character weakness. Of course that sort of ties into something that I call the Hagrid Problem with how some YA/children's literature treats what is portrayed as essentially alcoholism as something that is lovable and funny instead of incredibly destructive and painful to the people who suffer from alcoholism as well as their family and friends. I don't expect a detailed exploration of how devastating alcoholism can be, but if it's going to be brought up in YA/children's literature, I'd rather that it wasn't treated as a joke or that everyone who calls out the wildly harmful, irresponsible behavior often associated with alcoholism wasn't treated as a villain or a person with no sense of fun. I guess to me it reads like: Myles is the court drunk, Myles is so funny and adorable, everyone loves Myles and doesn't mind his drinking except Alex but Alex's concerns should be invalidated since he came to a bad end anyway. To me, it's just the optics of that aren't great. I do think Tammy handles alcoholism better in later series like with Raoul, but with Myles in SOTL she dropped the ball in my opinion.

You make a good point with regard to Tunstall. I was more considering the class aspect (that it is taboo for a noble to lower herself by associating with a commoner) but the patriarchal expectation that a man should provide for his woman (to use patriarchal phrasing) could definitely have been a factor in Tunstall's decision as well. I agree that I don't think Tammy planned the twist before Mastiff and that might be part of why it always feels jarring to me.

[Rosie]

Even if Jon was the one to appoint Myles as Spymaster formally, presumably he would have been a spy of sorts beforehand, too? (also, this makes me hope that Douglass can be Roald's official spymaster, just because I really like Douglass)

Either way, I'm happy to agree that Myles's relationship with alcohol, real or feigned, wasn't dealt with well.

[devilinthedetails]

Jun 8, 2018 19:10:55 GMT 10 Rosie said:

Even if Jon was the one to appoint Myles as Spymaster formally, presumably he would have been a spy of sorts beforehand, too? (also, this makes me hope that Douglass can be Roald's official spymaster, just because I really like Douglass)

Either way, I'm happy to agree that Myles's relationship with alcohol, real or feigned, wasn't dealt with well.

Yeah, that's a good point that Myles probably did have some spy experience before he was appointed Spymaster whenever that might have been. I guess I haven't thought about Tortallan spying too much during the reign of Roald (Jon's father). I mainly think about the spying in Tortall from Lioness Rampant through the Daughter of the Lioness books where more is mentioned about it, but logically at least some amount of spying must have been happening in the earlier Song of the Lioness books. Actually thinking about this makes me kind of want to write a fanfic where Roald (Jon's father) is furious at Myles the spy for knowing that Alanna was a girl and not reporting that. This is why I love talking to other fans since I get to see the books in new and exciting ways.

Even if Douglass doesn't get to be official spymaster, I'm sure we can find some position for him in Roald's (Jon's son)court. The great thing about that future era is it is basically a blank slate we can fill in however we want.

I also hope I didn't come across as too overbearing with regard to Myles and alcohol. I understand that everyone interprets characters and books differently, so I wasn't trying to pressure you or anyone else to agree with me. I was just looking to share my own perspective. If you agree with my perspective, that is cool, but if you don't I respect that too. Just wanted to make that clear because sometimes I don't communicate that as well as I would like to online if I get passionate.

[Rosie]

No, of course not! I was in agreement, but didn't have anything useful to add bar that, and I didn't want to ignore it since I was making the comment about spying anyway.