I was totally not expecting the gap to have a happy ending

[ItisWritten]

Angus redeemed? I don't think you can say that. Maybe on the path would be more accurate.

Even Angus would deny that he was changed, if not to himself. The moment he changed was when Warden freed him from control, and decided to help anyway. The point for Angus had always been freedom, because of his time in the crib. Until his attachment to Morn, keeping his freedom meant taking it from others.

When Warden freed him, even when Angus had refused to help, that was the epiphany. Morn had done it earlier when they altered his datacore, but she was trying to do what was right--even for a rapist and murderer. For the head of the UMCP to absolve him . . .

What Warden did allowed Angus to give freedom to Norna, and to Holt's drones on the yacht. Killing them deprived Holt after all, and keeping Fasner alive for a long time, perhaps even as Norna was, would be fitting.

However, I agree that zone implants would be distasteful to him. So would putting Fasner into a Norna-like crib. That would be the destructive road; Victim to Destroyer.

What would Angus do with his power? Keep in mind that much of the info, without Holt's UMC & UMCP power, becomes less valuable. Could he build his own Billingate? Possibly under an alias, because the Amnion--if Vestibule's curse holds--would not leave him be. Their unity of purpose would not be satisfied without Angus in the fold. The cost to Angus in dealing with them would be too high.

[CovenantJr]

Good points.

[ItisWritten]

Thanks.

I left out something though, in regards to justice.

If Angus stays on the path of redemption (and how can he not with Morn looking over his shoulder, so to speak?), he'll be bound to some form of guilt and self-loathing, and isn't that justice? Sure, he's got nice stuff, but his wretched soul won't enjoy it for long.

[Zarathustra]

As for Angus' punishment or not, we also have to remember that it wasn't decided by a court or jury or any of the things we think about in our world. In America, his crimes would still deserve punishment, and Angus would most likely still have been sentenced (though perhaps for a shorter time due to his "cooperation").

From what I remember (it's been a while since I read the Gap), he was set free by the graces of Warden, who had decided that he (Warden) had caused too many people to suffer too much in his attempt to take down Fasner.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Who was going to punish Angus? Warden certainly felt like he was in no position, that he had done just as much--if not more--harm to humanity in general than Angus had. He understood culpability. He was in no position to judge Angus. And he still needed him. He was still using him, even if Angus helped willingly. So what was he supposed to do? Turn Angus over to the cops? I think Warden's decision was justified from his perspective.

But from my perspective? Angus should have been terminated. He should have gotten the death penalty. I don't buy Donaldson's implicit "message" that redemption is more important that punishment, because I think there are some crimes from which you cannot be redeemed (apparently SRD disagrees). Murderers can't bring back the dead, no matter how sorry they are. Being sorry doesn't make it right. Ever. Saving humanity doesn't even make it right. If that were the case, then we're just talking a numbers game. "I can kill a person, as long as I save two more." That's nonsense.

I think part of redemption has to do with forgiveness. The dead can't forgive.

Okay, with that said, I think it would make a bad story if Angus had been killed or went to prison. I liked the ending. I like a story that acknowledges that bad stuff happen, even in the middle of good stuff. I like a story that doesn't deny that the bad guys get away with it . . . because they certainly do. And if I were a bad guy, I'd want to get away with it, too. There's a frightening liberation in putting yourself in Angus's shoes and realizing that reality doesn't care. Certainly there is a small part of Angus in all of us--a part that would love to get away with any desire or impulse without lasting consequences. If this weren't the case, there would be no need to warn against this truth, to harden ourselves against such a failing.

[drew]

I must agree with Malik.

He's stating the opints That I've been trying since I fist read the GAP...

Just because Angus turned into a good guys...doesn't mean he should get off scot-free--he did plenty of bad shit...not just to Morn but to countless others...like the rest of Morn's familyu; that minning camp; the ship load of people he sold to the Amnion..
..If you think about it...the Amnion were where they were because of Angus....if He didn't sell them a ship load of Humans; they might not have been prepared to deal with them (at lest not at that point in time anyways.)


But No; sending him to prison would not have been a good ending either....but I don't agree that getting a luxury starship as being a fitting ending for him.

[ItisWritten]

But No; sending him to prison would not have been a good ending either....but I don't agree that getting a luxury starship as being a fitting ending for him.

I quite agree. What would truly be fitting is SRD sinking his literary claws back into Angus, and twisting him around for another 3-4 books.

Ooh. That almost sounds evil.

[Avatar]

[I don't buy Donaldson's implicit "message" that redemption is more important that punishment, because I think there are some crimes from which you cannot be redeemed (apparently SRD disagrees). Murderers can't bring back the dead, no matter how sorry they are. Being sorry doesn't make it right. Ever. Saving humanity doesn't even make it right. If that were the case, then we're just talking a numbers game. "I can kill a person, as long as I save two more." That's nonsense.

I think part of redemption has to do with forgiveness. The dead can't forgive.

No, but the living can. I'm open to the idea of redemption. And I don't think that they are the same thing as "making it right." Things can never be undone, and things can't be made right, but that doesn't mean that they can't be atoned for, and that that atonement should count for nothing.

--A

[Zarathustra]

I'm definitely open to the idea of redemption. A spouse having a one-time lapse of fidelity after years of happy marriage. A child that steals a toy from a store. A best friend who betrays a trust. Etc.

However, homocidal, pathalogical behaviors which include a long-running history of repeated offenses--a pattern which changes ONLY when something really shitty happens to you--I don't think those qualify.

Redemption certainly doesn't negate responsibility. Nor is punishment mutually exclusive with redemption. In fact, I think perhaps a person--if they can be redeemed at all--is redeemed through accepting punishment.

Do you think there are no crimes which are so bad that redemption is no longer an option? Even Hitler could have been redeemed? Do you think child molesters can be redeemed? People who kill their own children? Lord Foul?

[drew]

...people who sell ship loads of innocent people to aliens...people who murder entire minning camps...people who Rape and Torture a woman for weeks at a time...?

[Avatar]

Good post Malik. I'm tempted to say that nothing cannot be redeemed. The form that redemption may take is another question altogether. And of course, the motivation behind that attempt at atonement, and finally the longevity or lasting nature of that attempt.

So in other words, the real question is whether a person means to make up for what they did for reasons other than the practical, and that they continue behaving in such a way.

--A