Why doesn't anyone care about Pietten?

[CovenantJr]

Ouch, I might hurt myself if I tried to pronounce that, CJ.

That's my best attempt to translate the sound into a word. It's kind of a hawking sound, made with the tongue and the throat. You should try pronouncing the notorious Welsh town: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

[matrixman]

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

(speechless...)

Um, while I'm here...another rambling thought about the Ramen and Landfolk in general: it's fascinating that people of such apparent pragmatic character are at the same time so ready to take to idealistic promises. Is that a paradox? It's a quality that makes them both admirable and exasperating. No wonder Covenant gets into a knot over them.

The Haruchai aren't technically Land citizens, I guess, but they certainly take idealistic promises to the extreme, while simultaneously being a very pragmatic people who don't suffer nonsense or fools.

Covenant did harm to the Land and its peoples in his ignorance or belligerence, but they were quite capable of messing themselves up, too -- no Unbeliever required.

[wayfriend]

Catching up on this thread, the only thing I can think of to add is: this is all so similar to the Staff of Law.

Donaldson says "Every weakness is a strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use". But it occurs to me that this cuts both ways, and Foul knows how to take advantage of this. What Foul does ... is maneuver things until strengths can be used as weeknesses.

When the first Staff of Law was created, it strengthened the Law. But it also provided an opportunity to damage it, because of what would happen when it was destroyed. Things don't have to be corrupted by Foul to become weaknesses... there doesn't have to be anything impure or flawed in someone's service ... It's just that everything has two sides. Strengths are also weaknesses.

So I guess that what I'm saying is, you don't have to find something "wrong" with something that Foul twisted to his purposes.

So when you wonder why the Ramen tolerated Pietten, I don't find anything wrong with what the Ramen did. I don't think that they are gullible or blind or otherwise flawed. I think that what they did was the right call, the best choice.

(Covenant may have requested it, but did not Mhoram then say, "Foamfollower has already spoken to the Manethralls. They have agreed to care for Llaura and Pietten" ? The Ramen undertook the task without any mandate from the Ringthane.)

It's just that, in caring for Pietten, a new opportunity for their harm was created. Precisely in the same way that creating the Staff of Law provided a new opportunity for harm to the Land. Without a guy like Foul around, such opportunities might remain insignificant, unseen. But Foul is the great capitalizer.

[variol son]

One reason that Pietten was never as tragic for me as Llaura was that I knew what she was like before the ur-viles afflicted her. Covenant interacted with her. Pietten however was a mystery before he wipes the blood from the grass after the battle of Soaring Woodhelven and licks his fingers. It's like there's nothing lost - to me he was always like that.

I have to disagree that the Ranyhyn showed poor judgement in choosing Elena. They knew that she might screw up like she did, but they also saw that she might do the exact opposite. Most importantly I think, they decided that supporting her would increase the chances of a positive outcome. Sure it didn't work, but i see it more as a calculated risk that didn't pay off as opposed to a error in judgement.

Besides, they were bound to her, in a way, by Covenant's gift to Lena and by the fact that she was both her daughter and his. It is possible that they saw devoting themselves to her as an extension of fulfilling their promises to Covenant.

[Relayer]

I have to disagree that the Ranyhyn showed poor judgement in choosing Elena. They knew that she might screw up like she did, but they also saw that she might do the exact opposite. Most importantly I think, they decided that supporting her would increase the chances of a positive outcome. Sure it didn't work, but i see it more as a calculated risk that didn't pay off as opposed to a error in judgement.

Besides, they were bound to her, in a way, by Covenant's gift to Lena and by the fact that she was both her daughter and his. It is possible that they saw devoting themselves to her as an extension of fulfilling their promises to Covenant.

I agree with you. They didn't have to offer ridership to Elena, though (apparently they didn't offer it to Lena). Covenant only asked that they "go to" Lena each year. They clearly saw a reason for choosing Elena and taking her to the horserite. It was a risk, but as you say, they saw the possible benefits. They seem to have a "glass half full" outlook on the world... always see the best possible result.

Spoiler

We see more of this in Runes, where Elena/Ranyhyn is discussed and we see how they make the same choice regarding Linden.