rpuchalsky on December 3, 2006 at 5:09 pm said:
Whew.
Well, he said that he’d come back.
Vincent Avatar on December 3, 2006 at 5:14 pm said:
rpuchalsky on December 3, 2006 at 5:53 pm said:
Now the long version:
In one sense, it’s a mystery as to why Max returns when he does; in another, it’s not. It’s like Kairos instead of Chronos time. One thing I hadn’t realized until just now is that all three classic terms for literary emotional effects — kairosis, kenosis, catharsis — also have associated religious meanings.
For the last entry, the one where Max is floating in universal joy, with no one to talk to — I started writing a comment in which I was trying to phrase, without being mean, how this seemed wrong as the appropriate happy end for Max. Not because lovers aren’t sometimes seperated by sudden ends — that happens all the time. But because Max’s previous “happy end” was the antithesis of love, which antithesis I take to be not suffering, but disconnection. That’s where most of the “people fight what they love” is from; once people start to have an actual relationship with their loved one, they experience stubborn disagreements. If love is a transforming force, and if two entities love each other, that can look a lot like a fight. That’s why Nirvana never quite appealed to me; compassion isn’t love (well, Buddism includes loving-kindess, but not relatedness of the sort in which two actually different entities affect each other).
But, I thought, I trust that the last 5 of 5 entry will hold something else; I should wait until I see what that is. So I did, and so I don’t have to write that comment after all, for which I am glad. (Or rather, I can sort-of-write it in summary, on the way towards saying Yay! for this temporary end.)
It’s interesting that so much of this turns out to have been a story about judgement, when I saw it as a story about love. Max did do something that I would judge to be very wrong, but his motives did not seem really abusive. When I criticized Max’s depicted actions in setting out to “cure” Sid in the same terms as those in which he set out to “harm” him — criticizing both in terms of not first asking Sid what he wanted, rather than acting for what Max thought that Sid should want — there was a reply, in Letters, envisioning a doctor who must amputate a wounded limb on a battlefield and their patient waking up afterwards and asking how doctors are different than soldiers. If intention matters, then judgement that Max’s action was bad is fully compatible with forgiveness, because his intention wasn’t that bad. Of course, even if Max’s intentions had been bad, Sid could have chosen to forgive him if he’d rather. But then there’s the question of why he’d rather. The general answer to that has to do with Sid not crippling himself. But that doesn’t lead to love for the forgiven person, just a needed seperation.
rpuchalsky on December 3, 2006 at 5:56 pm said:
Now the long version:
In one sense, it’s a mystery as to why Max returns when he does; in another, it’s not. It’s like Kairos instead of Chronos time. One thing I hadn’t realized until just now is that all three classic terms for literary emotional effects — kairosis, kenosis, catharsis — also have associated religious meanings.
For the last entry, the one where Max is floating in universal joy, with no one to talk to — I started writing a comment in which I was trying to phrase, without being mean, how this seemed wrong as the appropriate happy end for Max. Not because lovers aren’t sometimes seperated by sudden ends — that happens all the time. But because Max’s previous “happy end” was the antithesis of love, which antithesis I take to be not suffering, but disconnection. That’s where most of the “people fight what they love” is from; once people start to have an actual relationship with their loved one, they experience stubborn disagreements. If love is a transforming force, and if two entities love each other, that can look a lot like a fight. That’s why Nirvana never quite appealed to me; compassion isn’t love (well, Buddism includes loving-kindess, but not relatedness of the sort in which two actually different entities affect each other).
But, I thought, I trust that the last 5 of 5 entry will hold something else; I should wait until I see what that is. So I did, and so I don’t have to write that comment after all, for which I am glad. (Or rather, I can sort-of-write it in summary, on the way towards saying Yay! for this temporary end.)
It’s interesting that so much of this turns out to have been a story about judgement, when I saw it as a story about love. Max did do something that I would judge to be very wrong, but his motives did not seem really abusive. When I criticized Max’s depicted actions in setting out to “cure” Sid in the same terms as those in which he set out to “harm” him — criticizing both in terms of not first asking Sid what he wanted, rather than acting for what Max thought that Sid should want — there was a reply, in Letters, envisioning a doctor who must amputate a wounded limb on a battlefield and their patient waking up afterwards and asking how doctors are different than soldiers. If intention matters, then judgement that Max’s action was bad is fully compatible with forgiveness, because his intention wasn’t that bad. Of course, even if Max’s intentions had been bad, Sid could have chosen to forgive him if he’d rather. But then there’s the question of why he’d rather. The general answer to that has to do with Sid not crippling himself. But that doesn’t lead to love for the forgiven person, just a needed seperation.
rpuchalsky on December 3, 2006 at 6:05 pm said:
Oh, and getting back to what’s important, Max’s next line is clearly “Hey Sid, why did you wait to put on all those clothes before you hugged me?” :)
Luc on December 3, 2006 at 8:36 pm said:
I find it interesting, to say the least, that Death and Sid both talk in boldface without quote marks.
JoeCrow on December 3, 2006 at 11:11 pm said:
Aww. That was sweet. Those crazy kids. Nice to see them work it out.
Kalisara on December 3, 2006 at 11:40 pm said:
Having just registered in order to post a response to this part of the story, I’m now left trying to decide what exactly to post.
In the absence of divinely inspired words, how about I just settle for “That was really, really cool”?
pathar on December 4, 2006 at 12:18 am said:
It’s interesting how the answers to Il Ma’s questions seem to be rather simple, and obscured primarily by perspective.
Michael on December 4, 2006 at 4:35 am said:
It’s interesting how the answers to Il Ma’s questions seem to be rather simple, and obscured primarily by perspective.
I think that the questions of Ii Ma trap people by redefining them; Just as demons teach acceptance and footsoldiers question pie, people within the place with no recourse fail to answer the question.
I’m not sure that any of the answers we’ve seen have been answers in the sense that “What is 2+2” can be answered by “4”. Instead, they are dismissals. The way out of Ii Ma’s domain appears to be to deny that the question needs to be answered.
Given this, I think it is unsurprising that so few people escape Ii Ma. The questions are well chosen, and it’s hard to change your priorities to end the trap.
Places without recourse really do suck.
Ford Dent on December 4, 2006 at 4:53 am said:
I’m going to start applauding wildly now.
I’ll stop in a week or two.
GoldenH on December 4, 2006 at 9:02 am said:
I think Micheal’s right.
This is really the answer I thought of, and I thought “Max is Dead” was a good enough reason to forgive someone too.
But if li Ma’s question prevents you from doing the right thing, then that makes the whole story more palatable.
so often whe I am being creative, there is an idea that skirts the edges of my mind… i immediately decide that it is wrong and even an instant later, before the idae was even expressed consciously and i want to know why it’s wrong, the idea is already there.
I find that the same thing can happen when people tell me things… sometimes ideas just seem so wrong you can’t even think them.
If li Ma’s question can do that… that’s pretty scary.
GoldenH on December 4, 2006 at 9:09 am said:
*wrong, the idea is already gone
bv728 on December 4, 2006 at 9:24 am said:
Ii Ma’s questions, it seems to me, prevent you from being you. The answer, it seems to me, always involve being yourself anyway.
rpuchalsky on December 4, 2006 at 10:55 am said:
I don’t quite agree, bv728. For example, Max pushed someone out of the way who was about to be asked a question, and heard their question instead. That question was “How could you betray your wife?”. If that person was the kind of person who wouldn’t feel guilty about betraying his wife in the first place, he would have been easily able to answer the question with “Because I felt like it” or some such. Ii Ma’s questions only have force because of the person being questioned’s own value system, negative feelings, etc., which are as much a part of them as anything else is.
Ii Ma’s questions seem to turn self-judgements against the people who make them. That’s the point of the conclusion “we make our own judgments, light and dark, and they are our servants— Not the other way around.” But it’s still a struggle to reevaluate the self-judgement, or, it seems to me, that that is an unavoidable part of not being a sociopath.
Aliasi on December 4, 2006 at 3:10 pm said:
Keep in mind Ii Ma himself isn’t, which lends further support to rpuchalsky’s interpretation. Ii Ma works to trap people by revealing their self-contradictions; the way to free yourself is to resolve the contradiction in a satisfactory way. (And the Buddhist way has been called a way to resolve these contradictions, which shows you where Tara comes in at.)
Sid wanted to forgive Max of something he felt was unforgivable. Sid’s resolution of the matter was that anything is forgivable if you wish to forgive.
Michael on December 5, 2006 at 3:07 am said:
Point. Ii Ma being an isn’t would mean that it can’t create the questions, only point out a situation that already exists.
Which would imply that all of the people trapped in the place with no recourse are trapped by their own choices.
Which fits with Ii Ma being a dark mirror of Martin, but I still find it incredibly unsettling.
I’m not sure that I want to find out what happens if Ii Ma becomes an is.
On a happier note, this entire arc was very good, but much as I like the long story arcs, I am looking foward to the resumption of individual legends.
Also, I can’t help but think that this:
siggorts, like most things that aren’t Max, are terribly, terribly easy to cut.
would go some way to explaining siggorts, if I was thinking more.
rpuchalsky on December 5, 2006 at 7:04 am said:
“I’m not sure that I want to find out what happens if Ii Ma becomes an is.”
I think that we’ve been told what happens, actually, or we have a good idea. To quote the monster from “The Fable of the Lamb (1 of 2)”, talking about what Martin can do:
“This is what Jane has. She has a creature that can breach the boundary and make gods real. He can manifest dharma. If he sends to us a killing god, there are none of us safe. Conversely, should he manifest Ii Ma, then we may imprison any man we choose, without recourse, without jurisdiction, without protection. We would simply speak a man’s name, and Ii Ma would take him away.”
The monster could be wrong, of course — I imagine that monsters usually are wrong — but there is the implication that if Ii Ma became real, self-contradictions would no longer be necessary for imprisonment. The Place Without Recourse would become much more like the actual prison of a totalitarian state; it wouldn’t matter what you had or hadn’t done. And there would be no chance of an answer that you could give that would get you out, unless the controllers of the prison decided to let you out.
chaomancer on December 5, 2006 at 10:10 am said:
I don’t have much to add here, except – Wow! That is lovely, and awe inspiring.
Don’t mind me, I’ll be over here applauding for a while.
Ninjacrat on December 5, 2006 at 10:25 am said:
Rebecca r dun gud.
cariset on December 5, 2006 at 2:34 pm said:
Also, I can’t help but think that this:
> siggorts, like most things that aren’t Max, are terribly, terribly easy to cut.
would go some way to explaining siggorts, if I was thinking more.
It seems as if introspection might be a very dangerous pastime for siggorts to engage in…
Recherche on December 6, 2006 at 11:15 pm said:
I’m really fond of these longer Hitherby sub-works. Wonderful conclusion. :)
Qoheleth on December 16, 2011 at 10:59 am said:
I wonder… did Max telling himself he’d come back count as making a promise?
Nyren on December 19, 2011 at 3:07 pm said:
I don’t think so, if only because he didn’t come back wearing a jacket.