#7 Maldor and Enemies

[Chelsea]

On page 416, Maldor explains why he doesn't kill his greatest enemies. Is this a good idea? Why or why not? Should we use this strategy in our war tactics in our world?

[Cindy]

It's certainly true that making martyrs out of our enemies is a bad idea. The best place for an enemy is probably alive and out of commission, which is I guess what Maldor is trying to do. At the time I read this, though, it sounded like bad movie villain logic. And given what we've seen of how often people switch loyalties in this world, I would never trust that a former enemy is now loyal to me.

[Carol]

With Maldor being the great big baddie, like Cindy, our loyalties are a big part of how we should never trust that a former enemy is now loyal to me. I think you handled that very very well.

[Angela]

Making martyrs was a great point. It reminded me of George Orwell's 1984 a little. Ideas are the things that survive, and martyrs make those tangible, easier to relate to, and more personal, so the ideas you want to get rid of actually grow stronger. I wouldn't have the trust to make my enemies work for me, though, so putting them out of commission in an Eternal Feast sort of way seems the best way of dealing with that, since in prison they can just escape, etc.

[Chelsea]

Great answers! Showing that people who defy him end up blind and somewhere off to rot sounds worse than death. It makes less people want to stand against him.

I don't think this would work too well in our world...we don't have displacers. :)

[M.E.]

The eternal feast was a death sentence to a lot of the participants.
The people feared the great Maldore because to defie him was a fate worse than death. They would be tortured for years left disabled or blind, etc. So it is no wonder some of them opted for the
feast which promised paradise.