On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Philip Hart wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, David Silberstein wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Philip Hart wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, David Silberstein wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Philip Hart wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, David Silberstein wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> The Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont are both >> >> >> serious Yendis trying to out-Yendi each other. >> > >> >They're too open in my view. If I remember correctly, Valmont is >> >a known predator who has to find a naive sheltered Christian to >> >practice a manipulation (twice, actually). >> >> Well, after many years of being manipulative and deceitful, of >> course he'll get a reputation for being that way. >> >> You seem to be suggesting that if he were truly on top of things, >> *no one* would ever know. Well, if Yendi were that way, they >> wouldn't have the reputation of being manipulative and deceitful, >> they would have the reputation of being strangely competent in all >> situations. They're not, though, so they don't. There are limits >> to everything, even a Yendi's ability to plan. > > >Part of being a Yendi is controlling who knows you're a Yendi... > >Having everyone informed know a) you're manipulative and b) what ends >you're trying to reach (Valmon't situation) makes it hard to be a Yendi. >On the other hand, he does work with it (arguing he's a good reclamation >project), which is Yendi-like. Exactly. Thank you for making my point for me. > >> >I agree re sex - they're like Athyras and knowledge - they're >> >pursuing an end (winning a game in this case) or perhaps trying to >> >achieve a kind of glory by taking on impossible challenges (which >> >is why I think Valmont is Dzur-like). >> >> No, no. Athyra are too uninterested in people to be good at >> manipulation; Dzur too open to be deceitful.. > >We don't know much about Athyra, really - but athyras are manipulative. > >Perhaps I'm making an ends/means case - Athyras don't care about >useless knowledge, Dzur don't care about obstacles. I think that those "don't cares" could be applied to quite a few of the Houses; I don't see why those two in particular. > >Valmont wants fame as I recall - or rather infamy. > He does care about his reputation, but the way I see it, he wants to be sure that he is known as a manipulator rather than the one being manipulated; the one who exploits the emotions of others rather than the one whose emotions allow him to be exploted. >> >> >and attempting to seduce a truly devout woman might be the local >> >equivalent of charging up Dzur Mountain. >> >> It's a challenge in manipulation, the Yendi's forté, not a >> challenge to do something that requires bravery, which is >> what a Dzur would want. > >Valmont's tragedy is that he's a hero in a cynical world. > Cough, hack. Are we talking about the same /Dangerous Liasons/? Maybe we're not. I saw the movie with John Malkovitch as Valmont. He's a contemptable cad, and a quasi-rapist. His tragedy is that he seems to feel a genuine emotional attachment to Mme. de Tourvel, and regrets (loathes?) what he has made of himself, and does not seem to be able to change his behavior. Getting back to Dzur and Athyra - there were plenty of opportunities for both physical heroism and intellectual investigations of all different types in the world of pre-Revolution France. I think it speaks to how far Valmont is >from being either brave or intellectual, given that his activity of choice is seducing other aristocrats' wives (or wives-to-be) and then dropping them like used tissues at the earliest opportunity. [Concerning irony] > >Actually I'm giving in to the flood of wrongness, a rather unSethran >choice I think... > I think Sethra is sufficiently aware of how shades of meaning can change in a mere few years (let alone how languages can change over generations) to worry about it overmuch. She has more important fish to fry.