Barbm1020 wrote: "Janny, back in the 60's there was a song/routine that was popular with the anti-war movement: "What if they give a war and no one comes?" The idea was great, but unfortunately not realistic. We c..."

I am a great proponent of free choice - regardless of the fact that it makes life messy, the alternative (a totally regulated society) is a lot less vibrant and mind numbing beyond imagining. I traveled to Russia when the iron curtain was still in force - and it was mind blowing. The colorlessness of day to day living, even the drabness of the labels and lack of advertising in a trip to the "supermarket" - it placed a lethargy on creativity that was outside anything I could have conceived.

In a free society, some people will make ugly choices, some will make greedy ones, some will make criminal ones, but the full range of possibility (even war) gives every choice a vibrancy, an aliveness, a creatively cutting edge, that just is not possible in a regulated environment.

But given that supreme range of choices - the responsibility for them lies with the individual - the victims and the aggressors both make choices: one to be helpless and blame, the other to bully.

It's been pointed out that the bully cannot, if the victim just walks away.

Yet as long as we nobilize "victimization" - it's too comfy for some. They'd rather "suffer" and sit still, and "blame" someone else before using their two feet, and decision.

Do you recall that poster (I enjoyed it) that used to depict kids in a playground jungle jim, and it had the caption: "What if education had all the money it needs, and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."

But lack of aggression is its own poison: diplomacy fails because aggression has been suppressed too long, and suppressed rage has long since broken down sane boundaries.

Do you think that too many people give their "power of choice" (read opinion) to a media that is into drama, rather than facts?

Did you see any parallel here, with Lysaer - and his opinions that keyed into the political sentiment of the Etarrans?

For this series, I wanted a book where the reader felt "there but for the grace..." that Lysaer's arguments would toe the "right" course - and if you did not know the other side of the conflict - you may have fallen for his charged view of the situation.

Was this point carried out successfully in Mistwraith, and how do folks think it might play forward into the next volume?

Janny, back in the 60's there was a song/routine that was popular with the anti-war movement: "What if they give a war and no one comes?" The idea was great, but unfortunately not realistic. We can't control what other people will choose, especially with all the hatemongering that goes on in the media. *sigh*

I have always pondered why people feel such a drive to "stay with the pack" even when the pack is morally depraved, or headed in a direction that can only be viewed as insane...hindsight damns the actions, sometimes, but is our survival instinct (to not make social waves) as much at fault for the observers who fail to show the most basic care for their fellows, in such warped regimes?

Sometimes I've held that war is an individual choice: if, on the battle line, or in cases of genocide, if no one pulled the trigger - if each person bearing arms decided not to prosecute an atrocity - what then?

I think its interesting that the Prologue states that history favors Lysaer. Of course, the issue with history is always who wrote it.

Further, as our own world history has shown us it is easier to stand with the masses under the guise of "justice", if serves your purpose, than to speak out against atrocities - the Holocaust being a vicious example.

The way I see it, the "polarized" viewpoint summed up was, one angle (Lysaer's) believes that change is best effected from the platform of politics - change or activate the law, and so initiate a better ideal. Concrete result by shifting the Law.

The other view, ignore what's going on at the top, and initiate change by living the difference. It may not shift the masses, but it does immediately effect those changes that are in the direct influence of the person wanting a better idea. Concrete result by Direct Action.

John, I think you hit Lysaer's sense of justice just right. He does seem more interested in maintaining the status quo and the perspective of justice being that which obeys the law, the way things are. He doesn't (at this point at least) seem to look into the right/wrong of the laws and question that, but assume that the people in charge are the legal and just rulers....I'm hoping that in time he will learn that just because people are in charge doesn't mean they are right and fair....

Janny asked for thoughts about Morriel Prime's assessment, so I think I'll start there and--setting myself up to be collosally wrong--say that Lirenda seems to be on the right track when she suggests that Lysaer is, at least, the more predictable. At the same time, Morriel seems to have it all wrong. I'm with Elaira that, if anything, Arithon's gifts are the ones that can lead to a reconciliation of the whole. There may be poets of too tender sensibilities, but Arithon will not prove to be one.

Ultimately, Arithon just seems all-around the more "right" of the two brothers. He's always seemed the more fair-minded of the two. When Lysaer was embrace by his people, even before he'd met the townsmen, he seemed ready to take their side against the "barbarians", unwilling to see the justice in their cause. When it comes to Lysaer actually taking the townsfolks' side and Arithon defending the clans, it just seems so lop-sided. If I'm not mistaken, the impression we're given of the so-called barbarians is that they raid caravans and traveling townsfolk, but they don't murder them. They take their stuff, they ransom them, but they seem rarely to take lives. Contrast that with the townsfolk, with their bounties to headhunters--where the scalps of men, women, and children all pay out as well--and their radical inequalities between haves and have-nots. How is it that Lysaer's thirst for justice can seemingly overlook that so easily? I suppose the clue is in the scene where the headhunters begin the rape of the captive women and Lysaer gives them a quick death instead--he doesn't accept the darkest side of his allies, but in the end he's perfectly willing to accept the proposition that the ends justify the means--killing women and children is fine if it's for the greater good of stamping out evil or if the enemy refused to fight fairly. Does it come down to "justice" ultimately being favorable toward the status quo? That justice--at least for Lysaer--is bound up in civilization and the way things are? Because the townsmen represent the established order, their justice is, to a large extent, his justice? And the barbarians--despite their historical position--no longer fit that? Especially since--faced with annihiliation--they just won't fight "fair"?

I really don't know. Lysaer is certainly going to do some damage. I've never been fond of pure justice without tempering. Fanatics use that argument all the time & I've rarely seen anything good come from them.

Arithon has a better chance of setting things right, but he's footloose & can stir up far too much trouble on his own, both by dragging Lysaer after him & by letting the wrong folks go on their ways because of pity.

The predictions were limited - too limited in their scope. A tempest can be a good thing - it's of no concern in a teapot - but if it rages over the best wheat fields, it can be worse than a mass murderer & less kind. It all depends on their range.

I do not ever write the same story, twice, therefore (grin) you will need to read to find out.

For this volume, though, do you think Morriel Prime's assessment was accurate, based on Elaira's reflection of the half-brothers' characters in the dyer's vat? Was the projection right or wrong, concerning Lysaer and Arithon's future direction?

I could see them at the end of the final book in the series, finally defeating the curse and hanging out together as brothers finally. They'd pass a bottle of something back and forth and look out over the world they'd annhiliated together with their struggles and Lysaer would say "oops", while Arithon solemnly took a drink from the flask and nodded......

They certainly started off on a bad note & there was a lot of hope for them for a while. I wonder if they'll wind up killing each other off now, though. I was actually thinking that they might toward the end of the book, but I doubted they would since their bloodline seemingly has to go on, but it was looking close.

Jim wrote: "The different faces each can have & just how badly they can screw things up when either goes to extremes...."

And all it takes is one measly little mistwraith to mess up the two.....compassion and justice SHOULD work together, in a perfect world.....and that being, Arithon and Lysaer should be allies......it really struck me hard that after they worked so long and hard to like and respect each other, the curse got in there and messed it up forever.....

Or is it forever? Guess we'll have to read on to see...

I liked the way Arithon stood for compassion & Lysaer for justice. It's interesting to see the two at odds & working together throughout the book. The different faces each can have & just how badly they can screw things up when either goes to extremes.

This topic presumes you have finished the book.