Elena coming on to Thomas

[Vraith]

Rape is rape, it's not a metaphor, though I can see how a man might want to think of it that way instead of for what it is.

Off-topic, but that's a bit much. What about all the women who've used it as a metaphor? There are a lot out there...And what about the men who've faced it head-on for exactly what it is?

[Holsety]

I didn't use the word 'rape' in this context and I don't think it is the right word to use. Rape is rape, it's not a metaphor, though I can see how a man might want to think of it that way instead of for what it is.

To me, the abduction of the child was a violation. They took her and altered her without consent. They could have asked since, as we have seen, the ramen can communicate with them on some level and one of them could have been sent to ask permission. Though, Lena was so damaged that she probably would have consented. But, they still could have asked.

So, yes, I still feel sorry for the little girl who was taken away and changed without permission. It was a violation of her, but not rape. Rape is rape, and, if you ever have experienced it, you won't confuse the two things.

If we are so concerned with violations, why is not bringing a human life into existence a violation? I didn't ask to be born, yet here I am - was I thereby violated? To change from naught into is...But I think that violation implies a change made for the worse, not just a change without permission. Unless not only the adults, but the children of the land are different than the children of the earth, there is surely some measure of violation as you seem to term it carried out against all the children of the land. We do things to infants without their express permission - surely the same is true of the people of the land. I don't want to say that a lack of ability to consent allows anything whatsoever to be done, but I also don't want to say that it bars things from being done.

After a moment, Lena answered with an air of irrelevance, "There is a man who desires to marry me. He is Triock son of Thuler. Though I am not of age he woos me, so that when the time comes I will make no other choice. But if I were of age now I would not marry him. Oh, he is a good man in his way - a good cattleherd, courageous in defense of his kine. And he is taller than most. But there are too many wonders in the world, too much power to know and beauty to share and to create - and I have not seen the ranyhyn. I could not marry a cattleherd who desires no more than a suru-pa-maerl for a wife. Rather, I would go to the Loresraat as Atiaran my mother did, and I would stay and not falter uno matter what trials the Lore put on me, until I became a Lord. It is said that such things may happen. Do you think so?

Covenant scarcely heard her.

I just thought I would quote this passage, because I find it interesting that Lena wanted to be a lord and that Elena actually became one. It almost seems as though Elena is taking on the burden that Lena once wished for, perhaps as a result of the Ranyhyn sending and other things.

[sindatur]

If we are so concerned with violations, why is not bringing a human life into existence a violation? I didn't ask to be born, yet here I am - was I thereby violated? To change from naught into is...But I think that violation implies a change made for the worse, not just a change without permission. Unless not only the adults, but the children of the land are different than the children of the earth, there is surely some measure of violation as you seem to term it carried out against all the children of the land. We do things to infants without their express permission - surely the same is true of the people of the land. I don't want to say that a lack of ability to consent allows anything whatsoever to be done, but I also don't want to say that it bars things from being done.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about parents making decisions for their children (that's a parent's job is to make decisions for their children, theya re not ready to amke for themselves)? The Ranyhan were not Elena's parents. How does the Ranyhan taking Elena to the Horserite equate to parents making decisions for their children?

[Orlion]

If we are so concerned with violations, why is not bringing a human life into existence a violation? I didn't ask to be born, yet here I am - was I thereby violated? To change from naught into is...But I think that violation implies a change made for the worse, not just a change without permission. Unless not only the adults, but the children of the land are different than the children of the earth, there is surely some measure of violation as you seem to term it carried out against all the children of the land. We do things to infants without their express permission - surely the same is true of the people of the land. I don't want to say that a lack of ability to consent allows anything whatsoever to be done, but I also don't want to say that it bars things from being done.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about parents making decisions for their children? The Ranyhan were not Elena's parents. How does the Ranyhan taking Elena to the Horserite equate to parents making decisions for their children?

It's merely an example that doing something without consent does not necessarily equate violation.

[sindatur]

If we are so concerned with violations, why is not bringing a human life into existence a violation? I didn't ask to be born, yet here I am - was I thereby violated? To change from naught into is...But I think that violation implies a change made for the worse, not just a change without permission. Unless not only the adults, but the children of the land are different than the children of the earth, there is surely some measure of violation as you seem to term it carried out against all the children of the land. We do things to infants without their express permission - surely the same is true of the people of the land. I don't want to say that a lack of ability to consent allows anything whatsoever to be done, but I also don't want to say that it bars things from being done.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about parents making decisions for their children? The Ranyhan were not Elena's parents. How does the Ranyhan taking Elena to the Horserite equate to parents making decisions for their children?

It's merely an example that doing something without consent does not necessarily equate violation.

They're two entirely different things though, apples and oranges. It is a parent's duty to make the decisions for a child not ready to make those decisions. Completely different from a babysitter (The Ranyhyn) doing such, without direction from the parents. Now, if Lena or Triock had consented, then we'd have a comparison.

[Holsety]

If we are so concerned with violations, why is not bringing a human life into existence a violation? I didn't ask to be born, yet here I am - was I thereby violated? To change from naught into is...But I think that violation implies a change made for the worse, not just a change without permission. Unless not only the adults, but the children of the land are different than the children of the earth, there is surely some measure of violation as you seem to term it carried out against all the children of the land. We do things to infants without their express permission - surely the same is true of the people of the land. I don't want to say that a lack of ability to consent allows anything whatsoever to be done, but I also don't want to say that it bars things from being done.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about parents making decisions for their children (that's a parent's job is to make decisions for their children, theya re not ready to amke for themselves)? The Ranyhan were not Elena's parents. How does the Ranyhan taking Elena to the Horserite equate to parents making decisions for their children?

That's imposing our standards on the Land, which in this case would seem to be a clear mistake. As has been pointed out by earlier posters (an earlier poster?), the Ranyhyn are viewed as unimpeachable as far as the Land is concerned. If they make a decision to intervene, the parent, in this case Lena, who herself (see my quote) loves the Ranyhyn, isn't going to object. The Dalai Lama metaphor was quite apt, and you have to imagine the recipient as something like a Tibetan who carries a picture of the Dalai Lama around in their pocket. It might be unprecedented, but its without malice. And Elena therefore has no reason to see it as a matter of captivity by an insidious external force, as an abduction. The setting apart of Elena was already a given due to her parentage, as has been pointed out. If you're going to question this interaction, you have to question every interaction and feel sorry for everyone, even in a place of beauty like the Land. And, while you can still be sick of Covenant, you also have to feel sorry for him, because he was also violated, torn into a completely different environment without his consent by Lord Foul and then by Elena, who repeated Foul's violation of Covenant for her own need.

[Ananda]

Rape is rape, it's not a metaphor, though I can see how a man might want to think of it that way instead of for what it is.

Off-topic, but that's a bit much. What about all the women who've used it as a metaphor? There are a lot out there...And what about the men who've faced it head-on for exactly what it is?

Fair enough. I don't always say things just the way i want them in english and they come out stronger than I intend. But to my point is it that rape is rape and not a metaphor. And this horse thing isn't that since people were labeling it as rape. I think that's not what it was.

[peter]

I agree Ananda - the rape analogy seems wrong to me on many levels - but clearly if we stick to the word 'violation' this is a veiw that resonates with many peoples 'reading' of this episode in the Chrons. Not however for me. Elena was exposed to power at the horserite undoubtedly,strength and folly - of course. But fear, danger, harm - never.

[wayfriend]

I'd have to say I am with you there, peter. Because Elena was young, I could understand seeing the horserite as a loss of innocence. She's being exposed to a new form of Lord Foul's evil, but also to the heart of the Ranyhyn. But I see no harm in intent, nor harm in outcome. Innocence is always lost.

[Ananda]

I'd have to say I am with you there, peter. Because Elena was young, I could understand seeing the horserite as a loss of innocence. She's being exposed to a new form of Lord Foul's evil, but also to the heart of the Ranyhyn. But I see no harm in intent, nor harm in outcome. Innocence is always lost.

I agree that I don't think the horses meant any harm or we are supposed to think the horses were having bad intentions. I just think it was imposed on the little girl and altered in a profound way and it made me feel sorry for her. She never really had a chance at a life of her own, if you follow what I'm meaning? I see the horses as a neutral force of nature who decided to intervene in a life to get an outcome they wanted.

And, I really like Elena. She's one of my favourite charters. Just because I see certain parts of the story in a way doesn't mean I think it should be any different. I like it how it was done.

[jonnyredleader]

Elena is my favourite character and I have more sympathy for her situation and the choices she had to make than anyone. Having said that she was always going to be an epic character, she was covenants daughter and I don't think she would have it any other way anyway. Lena wanted to pursue a life as a lord, so did atiaran so even without the covenant connection Elena was always going to be a someone that wanted more from her life.
The ranyhyn saw that and her potential to go save or damn, like her father. They didn't really have a choice either and Elenas chance of a normal childhood was gone way before they took her into the mountains.
Aside from that though Elena never expressed any resentment to the ranyhyn, covenant or the choices she had made up or the reaponsibilty put upon her until the earthblood.
If anything, she was proud to have the responsibility of high lordship and wanted to do her duty to the best of her ability, i didnt get the sense that she regretted her life, she only spoke fondly and with great understanding of the failings of her family. She was a strong woman and made her own choices, demonstrably on a number of occasions.

[Vraith]

Lot's of good stuff lately...I think just a reminder here, that happens to align well with johnny's last:
In this world, intentions are almost everything. This is so damn important. In our world we...
[sigh sadly] "he meant well...it's so sad" [firm pronouncement] "but he was wrong. Kill him, send him to hell."
But in the Land: "Such choices cannot serve despite."
That coupled with the fact that in our world we can often only guess if someone is in need/something is wrong [and even that often based on our own needs/perceptions/judgements] and in the Land many such things are in plain sight...I mean, except in rare cases if someone/thing means you harm they might as well be dressed in hunter orange carrying a neon sign that says "I mean to hurt you!"
In case anyone thinks the Rhany are a power that exceeds that, like TC being closed: they aren't. When they're nervous, everyone knows they're nervous, when they're shamed, it's as clear as a clown nose on their faces. We've seen it. They suck at hiding anything.

[jonnyredleader]

That's one of the reasons I always read the lands inhabitants and characters as they were. The lived with their hearts on their sleeves, said how they felt honestly with a sense of pride in what they believed in, even if it opened them up to hurt. It's what touched me very much about Elena.
Only covenant and foul kept their true intentions to themselves and with covenant there was always his internal monologue.

The normal childhood thing, in fact the normal life thing unfortunately went out of the window when Foul turned up and started his campaign, Elena and everyone else had to give up that life

[shadowbinding shoe]

That's one of the reasons I always read the lands inhabitants and characters as they were. The lived with their hearts on their sleeves, said how they felt honestly with a sense of pride in what they believed in, even if it opened them up to hurt. It's what touched me very much about Elena.
Only covenant and foul kept their true intentions to themselves and with covenant there was always his internal monologue.

The normal childhood thing, in fact the normal life thing unfortunately went out of the window when Foul turned up and started his campaign, Elena and everyone else had to give up that life

High Lord Kevin jumps to mind. There was also the incidence with Mhoram's parents in LFB who surprised everyone with a suicide in the middle of a battle. The health-sense gave you insights about the world and living beings in it but it was an all-powerful tool that made communication superfluous.

As for Elena, I always got the impression that she was considered a bit inscrutable, with her otherworldly gaze. Covenant on the other hand was pretty much in-you-face with his intentions most of the time. He always wanted to let everyone know what he thought.

[Holsety]

As for Elena, I always got the impression that she was considered a bit inscrutable, with her otherworldly gaze. Covenant on the other hand was pretty much in-you-face with his intentions most of the time. He always wanted to let everyone know what he thought.

Nah. I have the benefit of a recent reread, and I can contradict that. For one thing, he felt guilt over Lena's rape but didn't admit it to the lords or the others on the Plains of Ra, instead he had the ramen call the ranyhyn. And he refuses the help of one of the ramen, I think Winhome, when she asks, but it "chokes up his throat" and Foamfollower recognizes his deceit and says that the Ringthane is testing them. Realistically, he's refusing to acknowledge his need.

And there are also times with Lena when he isn't entirely open about what's going on with him, and is lost in his own thoughts.

Atiaran and others reflect that Covenant is "closed" to them - they can't see his intentions.

[jonnyredleader]

Granted Kevins deception was a biggy, but i think that was why it was such an issue with the lands inhabitants especially the bloodguard. It wasnt the culture or the usual way of things, partly because Kevin himself felt bad about having openly accepted Foul into his council and berated his mistrust of him at the same time. The oath of peace was set up to stop this though and i think thats important.
Dont think Mhorams parents committed suicide though?! i got the impression they were at the end of their life and laid down to die to create a distraction during the attack.
covenant also was brutally honest when he chose to be, usually using this honesty as a weapon, but his dishonesty with Elena was atrocious leading up to the earthblood and could have been much much worse had she felt betrayed.
She couldve seen this betrayal and coupled with the support and love she showed him might have turned against him or been pushed into something worse.

[peter]

I never quite understood why everyone was so unforgiving of Kevin Landwaster. He made a mistake sure, in assuming that by destrying the Land (or part of it) that he would get Foul into the bargin, but it was done with the best of intentions. He saved the Bloodguard, the Ramen, the Ranhyn, the people of the Land - the others he knew could fend for themselves ie waynhim etc. He bought them what, 2000 years of peace and prosperity before Foul sent his message to the Council via Drool and Covenant. And at the end of the day the idea wasn't that bad - hell, they stop your heart with those electric things if you're having a heart attack in the hope that when it starts back up it will find its rythem again. Surely what he did was along the same lines?

I know, but I just wanted to say.

[wayfriend]

Kevin's unforgivableness doesn't arise from what he did, but how he went about doing it. He concluded that he could save the Land all on his own, and made a decision to do so without including anyone else in it.

[peter]

But surely it would only have been unforgivable if he had done this with ill intent. His decision had to be a solitary one in that he would have been prevented from doing what he did by people who would have wanted to save him. He may have been wrong, but surely he was not ill - there was no despair in what he did - or was there?

[Holsety]

But surely it would only have been unforgivable if he had done this with ill intent. His decision had to be a solitary one in that he would have been prevented from doing what he did by people who would have wanted to save him. He may have been wrong, but surely he was not ill - there was no despair in what he did - or was there?

Going by the strictures of the Oath of Peace, there definitely was despair at work in Kevin's Ritual of Desecration. His belief was apparently that he could defeat the threat of Lord Foul by desecrating The Land, which only desecrated The Land and worked The Despiser's intent (think about the way in which Lord Foul numbers the Land's days in his message to the Lords in LFB - it's kinda like that, I think, Foul's designs are such that they always seem to win out until the critical moment when they don't...). Although it may be true that it was the best possible despair, that Lord Foul would have won desecration for himself in a faster manner and without his own weakening without Kevin's action, the fact remains that it was a defeat in that Kevin took on the Despiser's own aims in order to combat the Despiser. He failed to fight in such a way as to preserve The Land's beauty, instead giving in to destroying The Land's beauty in order to combat despite. If his belief was not that he could defeat Lord Foul by desecrating The Land but only forestall Foul, then there is a second signal of despair, despair against the seemingly eternal and unforgiving power of Foul himself, who has declared that he will be The Land's enemy at the last until all hope is rent from the Earth. Finally, by choosing to destroy the land's beauty in order to harm Foul, Kevin arguably chose vengeance and hatred above what he was fighting for. He did harm to the Earth for the sake of destroying its enemy, and failed.

EDIT-However, it is true that this viewpoint may be ex-post. The Oath of Peace is a way of interpreting how the people of The Land should act coming after Kevin's Desecration. Therefore, one might argue that the rules involving the proper way of acting in response to the beauty of the land are not the rules Kevin felt he needed to follow in service of The Land. That being said, I believe my post still holds some ground, even without his attitudes being the same, the mentality that he needed to go through to choose desecration seems almost certainly to be that of a man who knows defeat and spite in the face of a spiteful enemy. I need to restudy the vigor felt by Mhoram in service to The Land in The Power That Preserves to understand better.