snipMalik23 wrote:That's what I was saying!The flaws you mentioned are not the real story. I'll tell you what the real story is: TRS is a novel about redemption. Surprised? Here is how:
No. You didn't say anything about redemption in that post. In fact, I don't see anything about my conclusion there even if you happen to agree with it. I came to that conclusion (1) based on the fact that SRD always writes about redemption, and (2) on the SRD quote you gave from the very last page about what the real story allegedly was, and which you pointed to as the third of the triangular "flaw" in the novel.
The first two flaws you mentioned may be revealing of something, but I don't know what.
I'm afraid those are not simply flaws, those are plot-holes. Plot-holes are not at all anything like intentional "flaws" which may reveal clues to the real story. At the last page, however, is a mystery, and not any third flaw: why didn't Angus reveal the truth to the authorities, thus save himself? But you never called it a mystery:Malik23 wrote:there’s two flaws in this story. 1) The supply ship from Earth arrived on schedule. 2) The control to Morn Hyland’s zone implant was never found.
So I conclude that SRD did not tell us the real story, but left it for his readers to divine. The mystery is not, as you claim, Nick's cleverness or Morn's victimization. Cleverness is a trait of such "animals" as him, it is only a character trait endemic to the type, as is cowardice. There is no triangle of flaws. There is only the mystery of his refusal to tell the truth which could rescue him from spending the rest of his life in lockup. The mystery is solved through the spiritual concept of redemption. Thus, the conflict between Nick's overt toughness and the weakness revealed in him by his desire for Morn, was resolved.Malik23 wrote:The first mystery has to do with Nick’s cleverness. The second has to do with Morn’s victimization. Conspicuously . . . there’s a flaw left out here. Donaldson is saving something for the end. The triangle isn’t complete. There’s a third flaw in the chapter 2 “story” that Donaldson comes back to on the very last page:
WormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: So I quite agree that my plot-line summation was not the real story, and in fact, was superficial. But you must admit it did garner a few laughs.
Malik23 wrote:Oh, yeah. I liked it. Got a chuckle out of me.
I agree with that up to a point. But you still have not uncovered the real story. And then when I said the real story was Angus's redemption you claimed that's what you said. In fact, you said the real story involved how the story played out in terms of altering Angus's fundamental psychology.Malik23 wrote:because the Real Story isn’t what happened, but how it happened. These events wouldn’t have been possible if fundamental alterations in the psychology of these character hadn’t occurred (mostly Angus).
You were so close with that. However, Angus's empirical psychological conflicts are not the real story either. The real story involves that, just as it involves all levels of the story, but it goes beyond psychology to the transcendental or spiritual level of redemption, the covenant of law versus the covenant of grace.
Malik,
Your post has been the most interesting of all so far in this thread, and I hope you don't conclude that I'm picking on you. But you do leave thoughts and questions between the lines, such as in this:
You say there are these two mysteries, but you don't flesh them out, they simply serve as two legs of an imaginary triangle. But there is only one mystery - the revelation on the last page of the novel which does not explicitly reveal anything - and this sub-mystery which you only hinted at: Why didn't Angus use his cleverness to free himself from lockup? The answer is simple: because if he did, the novel would no longer be about Angus's redemption; and the novel would no longer be about the irony of Angus ultimate situation, his physical imprisonment versus his spiritual salvation through a courage which no walls can hold, the courage not to use his cleverness to speak out and save himself.Malik23 wrote:The first mystery has to do with Nick’s cleverness. The second has to do with Morn’s victimization.
I hope you understand from my responses that this is not about Angus defending himself so he can continue to pursue his desires. He has found a chink in his armor due to Morn's influence, and Nick took advantage of that chink making it a permanent feature of his personal story. There is no redemption for Angus's formerly tough personality "armor," his thick hide. Angus is an absolutist, and so he is "religious" about himself in the sense that Covenant is "religious."Malik23 wrote:This is vital to understanding Angus, and his alteration throughout the series: he didn’t defend himself, even though it cost him everything. And yet, his lack of defense doesn’t arise through a complete loss of self. He still retains enough of his desire to live to mourn for the loss of his ship. Those two facts don’t add up. If he still cares about the one thing he loves (his ship—which is really his freedom, power, autonomy, etc.—which means he still cares about himself), then why doesn’t he defend himself?
He does find his salvation, however, through the courage not to speak out in defense of himself. As weak as that seems - since he is only fleeing toward salvation because of his personal failure to maintain himself against Morn's beauty and then his eventual defeat by Nick - it is still redemption from Angus's limited point-of-view: it gives him the grace to free him from the law, the restrictions, of his cowardice. You can see in the novel various places where Angus's own cowardice has restricted his options and led him inexorably down a certain path. And at the end, even though he is physically imprisoned, he is at last freed from his cowardice. His courage not to speak out in order to free himself physically has, ironically, led to his spiritual salvation or inner freedom.
