Posts
Masema, Perrin and the Way of the Leaf
by Linda
Masema thinks Tinkers are useless cowards because they won't fight. Later, when he becomes a preacher, we see Masema’s followers – the Dragonsworn - and their extreme violence. The mob at its worst.
Following on from what Masema said, Perrin wonders that the Tinkers get involved in the War against the Shadow:
Finally he said, “I was surprised to see one of the Traveling People, believing as you do.”Leya knows why Perrin is sad; she just wants him to admit it to himself in the hope that he will change.
“It is possible to oppose evil without doing violence.” Her voice held the simplicity of someone stating an obvious truth.
Perrin grunted sourly, then immediately muttered an apology. “Would it were as you say, Mistress Leya.”
“Violence harms the doer as much as the victim,” Leya said placidly. “That is why we flee those who harm us, to save them from harm to themselves as much for our own safety. If we do violence to oppose evil, soon we would be no different from what we struggle against. It is with the strength of our belief that we fight the Shadow.”
Perrin could not help snorting. “Mistress, I hope you never have to face Trollocs with the strength of your belief. The strength of their swords will cut you down where you stand.”
“It is better to die than to - “ she began, but anger made him speak right over her. Anger that she just would not see. Anger that she really would die rather than harm anyone, no matter how evil.
“If you run, they will hunt you, and kill you, and eat your corpse. Or they might not wait till it is a corpse. Either way, you are dead, and it’s evil that has won. And there are men just as cruel. Darkfriends and others. More others than I would have believed even a year ago. Let the Whitecloaks decide you Tinkers don’t walk in the Light and see how many of you the strength of your belief can keep alive.”
She gave him a penetrating look. “And yet you are not happy with your weapons.”
How did she know that? He shook his head irritably, shaggy hair swaying. “The Creator made the world,” he muttered, “not I. I must live the best I can in the world the way it is.”
“So sad for one so young,” she said softly. “Why so sad?”
- The Dragon Reborn, Waiting
Doing no violence also means Tinkers aim to not speak in anger and violence. And in fact Leya makes her points very effectively with her calm manner. Her point about the danger of doing violence in the name of good is well and truly borne out by Perrin, Mat and, above all, Rand. Some are going out of their way to see Rand step back from becoming very dark like the Shadar Logoth evil and regain the humanity he has lost.
The Tinkers are at one end of the violence spectrum, the Shadow, Mordeth and Masema's Dragonsworn extremists at the other, with Rand towards the Shadow end. RJ is saying there is a fine balance here between what is necessary to counteract evil and what is evil in itself. If all did nothing, those who were unscrupulously violent would take over the world. (In The Great Hunt we saw what the world would be like if the Trollocs won.) But if people felt that any violence or crime was justified against evil, the world would be like Ghealdan when Masema was there, or like Shadar Logoth. Balance, as usual, is the key.
6 comments:
This conversation has always bothered me. Trollocs and Myrddhall are more animal than human. We have never had a point of view showing them to ever show mercy or even be capable of mercy. Thus allowing them to slaughter you is not the same thing as refusing to fight other human beings. If one was walking in the jungle in our world and a panther attacked you, if you did not attempt to defend yourself, that would be foolish (not to mention counter to the basic survival instinct we have hardwired into our brains). Same thing with a Trolloc. In neither instance could I see any "noble" ethical stance.
The underlying philosophy of the Tinkers is to do no violence because they believe that acting in a violent manner harms themselves. It matters not one iota the nature of the enemy - whether human, Trolloc, panther, or dragonfly. As Leya explains "violence harms the doer as much as the victim".
Even if we grant that premise, there is an overt selfishness to that philosophy. The Tinkers believe that it is better to let a friend, relative, loved on, etc. die than to commit a violent act to save him, because committing the violent act harms themselves. In other words, they place their own self worth (as they define it) before that of everyone else - the very epitome of selfishness.
I could accept the philosophy if a Tinker only refused to commit violence on his own behalf. If he chooses to die rather than defend himself, fine - it's similar to a motorcyclist choosing not to wear a helmet; it both cases I can respect his right to make that choice even though I find it utterly foolish.
But, when a Tinker allows others to die rather than commit violence on their behalf, because of some perceived peril to his own soul, it is selfish and cowardly, and therefore not a defendable moral position, IMHO.
As the books progress, Rand has been shown to move closer and closer to Shadar Logoth but not quite yet.
If he had done something terrible due to this influence, I think it would definitely enhance the conflicts and the books.
This would present the true dangers the world are in. Either way, the world may be lost. However, we are left with only the musings of the possibility of a victory by Rand as bad as his defeat. You just don't get a sense of dread RJ obviously intended.
Well Cadsuane, Nynaeve and co want to keep it that way! It's true that so far Rand has made himself miserable, and he has been rather childishly tyrannical so far, raging even when people arrange deals as he wants.
RJ is in a quandary here; if he makes Rand do something terrible, Rand loses the sympathy of the readers, and he looks less heroic and noble. If he doesn't do something horrible, the threat isn't real enough.
Bob:
Even if we grant that premise, there is an overt selfishness to that philosophy. The Tinkers believe that it is better to let a friend, relative, loved on, etc. die than to commit a violent act to save him, because committing the violent act harms themselves. In other words, they place their own self worth (as they define it) before that of everyone else - the very epitome of selfishness.
But each Tinker would rather die than kill, or have someone kill on their behalf. They don’t want their loved ones killing for their sake; that would be as bad as if they had killed in self-defence themselves. And they won’t do that.
What about the Tinkers arm in arm trying to stop an attack in order to give the women and children a chance to escape? Not selfish to me
Post a Comment