On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, David Silberstein wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Philip Hart wrote: > > >On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, David Silberstein wrote: > >> 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 think there's a mixed bag for your point above, but anyway, I'm all about the truth... > >> 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. Seems apropos to me - at least in context. Another way of looking at it - Yendis don't (afaik) look at sneakiness as a sufficiency - they're just naturals. V's goal is to manipulate. The Musketeers are Housed in my view, but that's because they are heros. I see M and V as people in a social epoch, blah blah blah. Incidentally, doesn't Vlad express special hatred for Loraan for controlling people? It would be right thematically. > >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. Guess I'm talking about the epistolary novel and the Malkovitch movie. I don't recall him being that bad, in my idea of the mores of the times, but then a little de Sade goes a long way in warping one's views. Certainly I wouldn't want to have anything to do with Valmont. If I recall correctly, he has a lot of positive traits but is on the wrong path (was he not corrupted by M?). If I say Satanic (or Byronic) hero, will you be satisfied? Or anti-hero? > 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. And we actually care - or I did. > 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. A dangerous undertaking, actually, esp. in view of the novel's ending. Here "world" = "the social world of nobles". What's the opposite of "demimonde"? Clearly you're right about the larger world. > 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. Can't see S frying fish. Maybe giant attacking flying fish with lightning bolts.