[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09:54:10 02/28/09 Sat
Author: 
JessieR
Subject: Carol raised a good point above: the heroes in these books are capable of unethical acts, & the thoughtful analyses above point to all kinds of acts, unethical & otherwise, engaged in by Jocasta, Ulysses, Phaedre, & Duncan, all of them adulterers, yet each of them uniquely heroic. I would like to round out this discussion, however, by asking how you judge the reactions of Jamie and Claire to these interracial/adulterous relationships. When I reread the chapters for this topic, I noticed that Jamie is more tolerant of Duncan & Phaedre’s adultery than that of Ulysses & Jocasta, not just in the actions he takes but also in the words he uses. Claire, while gentle in telling Jocasta she thinks her behavior was unkind and unfair, still lets the old woman know she crossed the line, something she does not say to D & P. Why is Jamie sympathetic to Duncan but harsher with Ulysses? Why isn’t Claire more eager to condemn D & P? How might J & C’s “crowded” marriages have influenced their reactions?
In reply to:
JessieR
's message, " Lines, Love, and Race in A Breath of Snow and Ashes" on 20:31:28 02/22/09 Sun
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [>
Jessie that is a great question. Thinking about this I found that, in myself, when there is a behavior that I do that I don't like, I often times find myself being very hard on others when I see the same behavior in them. I think that Claire never got over her feeling of guilt towards "cheating" on Frank and when she sees J & U's long term relationship, I think Claire is reminded of her feelings, and it makes her very uncomfortable. I think both Claire and Jamie view D & P's relationship as just a fleeting affair that has help Duncan to get back to his "manhood" so to speak. -- LisaW, 12:14:44 02/28/09 Sat
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Great point, LisaW. It’s the idea that Duncan gets a pass because Phaedre helped him regain his manhood that is the interesting issue here. I understand that Jocasta and Ulysses committed more than adultery; they colluded to get rid of Phaedre, and Jamie and Claire rightly see this as the reprehensible act it is. But Claire feels Jocasta’s adulterous deception of Duncan was “hardly fair,” even though she knew Duncan had deceived Jocasta, too. Duncan’s infidelity, however, came with “hooks” that make him a more sympathetic figure: he’s lost the only woman who was able to remedy his impotence. Claire even says that she felt “terribly sorry for him, regardless of the morality of the situation.” But does that alone justify the “pass” they give him? Or does he get the pass because he’s not a real man? >>>inside>>> -- JessieR, 09:45:44 03/01/09 Sun
Jamie has clear ideas of what it takes to be a man, and I don’t think Duncan fit the bill, recovered sexual potency or not. Why? Because Duncan couldn’t “draw up lines and fight other folk who come over them.” Had he been able to do so, he would have protected Phaedre and controlled Jocasta. As Kelly rightly notes, Jamie and Claire knew Duncan to be a good person who would never harm Jo, or most anyone else, for that matter. But I wonder if in the figure of Duncan DG has given us a good human being, but not a man, at least not in Jamie’s definition of the term. Jamie can and will pray for Duncan and loves him as a loyal friend and fellow Ardsmuir survivor, but he also pities him. Jamie is not one to treat people he pities with heavy-handedness.
Ulysses, however, is a man. He can make the tough choices, even the unethical ones, to fight anyone who crosses the lines he draws. That he did this as a black man makes his accomplishment all the more impressive, given the era and place in which he lived. Jamie may not like his motives, but I think he admires his guts. I never got the sense that he pitied the man or treated him in any paternalistic sort of way. His treatment of Ulysses, though harsh, is delivered with respect. After all, Ulysses was about to steal Jamie’s horse; it’s a wonder he didn’t kill him on the spot.
I might even argue that Jamie sees a great deal of himself in Ulysses, at least in terms of being a disenfranchised person who still found a way to take the lead and exert power where he felt necessary. Ulysses takes the consequences of his action with a steely reserve: no pleading his case or begging for mercy. It would be beneath him. It’s how such a man could earn respect in a world that sought to deny it to him simply because of his faith, ethnicity, or race, and I think Jamie recognizes this aspect of manhood in Ulysses and respects him for it. Such respect strips Jamie’s behavior toward Ulysses of the taint of racism, which to me, at least, is the real achievement here. I might not like the sexist overtones in Jamie’s definition of manhood, but I applaud his ability to move beyond the socio-political constructs of racism and hold Ulysses accountable as a man, not a slave.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Yes, yes, yes. I think you are spot on here too -- Jamie must see something of himself in Ulysses; and as you pointed out several days ago, the literary Ulysses, exiled against his will from home, must rely on trickery to survive. Jamie and Ulysses do resemble each other and also, in shadowy ways, their literary antecedent. They are both disenfranchised indeed, and in a situation of confusing political and social flux . . . -- CatherineM., 07:50:09 03/02/09 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
CarolP -- Kelly, 21:00:19 02/28/09 Sat
Perhaps Jamie is more tolerant of Duncan and Phaedra because he sees Duncan as being victimized by Jocasta.By placing Duncan at River Run he placed Jo in a position where she did not have to get re-married and she was able to run her estate profitably. Jo in a way took advantage of Duncan. She knew she would never commit anything to the marriage and his disability gave her reason to not consumate her marriage. I also think Jamie was more tolerant of Duncan because he knew Duncan's character and knew he would not have set out to wrong Jo or P. The same could not be said of Jo's character.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
In addition to Claire's "cheating" on Frank mentioned by LisaW, Claire also vividly remembers the pain Frank's cheating caused her and the damage it did to their marriage. Maybe Claire is also thinking about the affairs of Jo and Hector during their marriage. One of Claire's attributes that I've been trying to copy is her remarkable non-judgementalism of others. Outside of preaching diet and hygiene, she doesn't tell others how to live. The surprising thing to me wasn't that she didn't judge Duncan, Phaedre or Ulysses, but that she did say something to Jo. Do we know Jo colluded with Ulysses to get rid of Phaedre? I had the feeling that Ulysses did that without Jo's knowledge or consent. Jamie may not treat those he pities with a heavy hand, but, like most of us, he loses a little respect for those he pities. I agree with Jessie that Jamie has respect in abundance for Ulysses as a man, he understands why U acts as he does. <<>> -- Carol P, 11:36:42 03/01/09 Sun
Jamie and Claire seem more tolerant toward Duncan and Phaedre's affair because it was short-lived and because Duncan and Phaedre are below Jo in importance to the Frasers. Maybe it's analagous to Jamie's tolerance of the angel-makers in Paris when we find out with Bree that Jamie has a real abhorrence to abortion. He understands the motivation of the ladies in Paris, but he doesn't (can't?) bring that understanding to someone close to him.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I don't know that Jamie can't bring the same understanding to someone close to him. I think it's that he sees that the women in Paris are poor and without protection; for them to have an illegitimate baby (or even a legitimate one that they can't feed) would be disaster. But to his mind, that's not at all the case with Bree, because he would always be sure that she and the child were taken care of. So I don't think he sees the situations as being the same at all. -- maddiej, 14:40:05 03/01/09 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
maddiej--I think you’re right about how Jamie sees the practical considerations of bringing a child into the world, but what about the moral implications of abortion that would have been a part of his Catholic faith? I’m uncertain about how a Catholic like Jamie justifies the morality of abortion, even with the angel-makers. Does his position on the angel-makers mean he can set aside the moral issue of abortion in cases where the child would be at risk once born? -- JessieR, 15:08:17 03/01/09 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
The Catholic church didn't oppose abortion before "quickening" (before the child was perceived to move in the womb, sometime after the third month of pregnancy). The notion that life begins at conception is much more recent than the 18th century. The "angel-makers," after all, are doing some of their work in the convent hospital. -- maddiej, 01:41:08 03/02/09 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
maddiej—The Church’s position on the morality of abortion has always been that it is a sin (the moral law). It’s the penalty for that sin that has shifted over time (the canon law). So while the Church did not view abortion before “ensoulment” (quickening) as murder in the 18thC (and therefore did not exact the penalty of excommunication), Catholic theological tradition has always taught that that abortion is immoral. -- JessieR, 07:02:29 03/02/09 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Carol—Great call about Jamie and the angel-makers. I don’t know if this is situational ethics or not, but I’m intrigued by this kind of thinking, in part because I often find myself with such fractured positions on controversial issues. You’re also right to question whether Jocasta acted with Ulysses in selling Phaedre. The text tells us for certain only that Ulysses was involved, and we get that news directly from Phaedre. But in the “Betrayals” chapter, there is a strong suggestion that Jocasta may have colluded with Ulysses, although there is nothing definitive. It’s more a tour de force of DG’s skill at intimation. >>>inside>>> -- JessieR, 14:57:25 03/01/09 Sun
In the ”Betrayals” chapter, Jamie reminds Claire that “the MacKenzies of Leoch are proud as Lucifer…and black jealous with it,” and that they have the gift to beguile & betray. They even contemplate Jocasta’s capacity to kill Phaedre, but only if Jocasta “had her sight.” But realizing a moment afterward that Ulysses “was not only Jocasta’s eyes, but her hands as well,” they put two and two together, and at least admit it’s a possibility that these two were involved, especially if there was an affair between Duncan and Phaedre, something they go on to confirm.
When Jamie & Claire take leave of Jocasta, she’s embroidering a table runner with images of the Garden of Eden, replete with images of “[b]lack-eyed serpents, coiling slyly, slithering, green and scaly…one gaped to show its fangs, guarding scattered red fruit.” Jamie then lets her know that he knows about Duncan & Phaedre, & that she’d better safeguard Duncan’s health or suffer the consequences. Jocasta responds “as though turned to salt…sitting like a statue, face as white as the linen.” None of this is categorical proof that Jocasta told Ulysses to get rid of Phaedre. Maybe Jocasta’s face went white with the shock of having her suspicions confirmed, although the coiling serpents suggest she already knew. If she did, this chapter hints strongly that the matron of River Run knew more about Phaedre’s disappearance than she let on to Jamie and Claire, and that Jamie believes she has the will and the capacity to hurt people close to her.
What Jamie and Claire don’t know at this time is that Jocasta had a greater motive for getting rid of Phaedre than vengeance for the affair (if the affair with Duncan was even a motive): the fear that Jocasta’s own illicit relationship with Ulysses might be exposed
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
I wasn't clear about what I was thinking about the angel-makers. We assume tolerance from Jamie in Paris because he indicates sympathy with the plight of the women to make that decision. We get further information in the discussion about Bree, we find out that Jamie does think abortion is absolutely morally wrong and not to be condoned. I don't think he sets aside the moral issue in Paris so much as he recognizes he has no control over the situation so ranting about the immorality would accomplish nothing, so maybe not a case of situational ethics. Also, as a Catholic, Jamie knows that evil exists so he wipes it out where he can but he doesn't expect to wipe all evil out of the world. Thanks, Jessie, for clarifying the signs of Jo's collusion. I read the same descriptions, plus the description of Jo at the beginning of the "Betryals" chapter, as indications that she didn't know what happened to Phaedre. But I'm a sucker for a good actor, or maybe I'm just too gullible. << inside >> -- Carol P, 17:19:41 03/01/09 Sun
I dismissed Jamie and Claire's ruminations, six books in I've learned Fraser speculations are off-base or skewed almost as many times as they are right. *g* Now that you've explained it, I can see how the same information could mean something different.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I'm not sure Jamie *does* see abortion as absolutely morally wrong. I think he objects so strongly to the idea that Bree might abort her child because (as he says, I think), he may not know who the father is, but he knows who its grandfather is. That is, it's his grandchild, and no one cares more about blood and family than Jamie does. -- maddiej, 01:45:25 03/02/09 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
maddiej--You’re right about the importance Jamie places on family, & that his ability to care for Bree’s child makes her case different from that of the angel-makers. But his position on the angel-makers still poses questions for me. To say that those women had no choice because they couldn’t protect & feed their children was to ignore the possibility of child abandonment, which was a frequent practice in the 18thC, & many cities had provisions for accepting such children. Jamie & Claire’s experience in Paris would have exposed them to this because the receivers of abandoned infants were often convent hospitals like the one in which Claire worked. Granted, institutionalization of these (mostly) illegitimate children created harsh conditions, but the practice would not have fallen into disfavor until much later in the 18thC, and would have morphed into some kind of social welfare program run by religious and community organizations by the early 19th. >>>inside>>> -- JessieR, 07:16:37 03/02/09 Mon
Jamie does see abortion as murder, however, because when he asks Claire in DOA if she’s ever performed one, he’s relieved to learn she has not: “’I knew ye couldna do murder.’” He must see abortion as immoral, but I don’t think he sees the angel-makers as murderers. Is this because they abort pre-quickening? The text doesn’t suggest he’s thinking along those lines, although you are right that the Church would have agreed with him if he were. He seems more concerned with what would happen to the angel-makers’ children once they were born. I’m just not sure why he takes this position given the alternative of abandonment that existed at the time. Abandonment wasn’t a great life, but it was life, and as he cautions Claire in DOA: “’Ye think it’s yours alone to say? That life and death is yours?’”
Last edited by author: Mon March 02, 2009 07:22:28
Edited 1 time.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
This is indeed a murky question, and I am wondering (though this would be a discussion for another day and has alrady come up from time to time here) about the recurring issue of mercy-killing in the books. -- CatherineM., 07:56:29 03/02/09 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Maybe Jamie hadn't quite thought the issue through in Paris? He was young and in the throes of his love and marriage. Could we read his tolerance of the angel-makers more as an immediate sympathy for the plight of the women like Louise rather than a definitive stand on the abortion question? I remember having such flawed reactions to moral questions when I was young. It was easy to see the immediate situation, but it took me longer to see less visible consequences. Then again, Jamie has committed murder (the guard at Ft. Williams when he rescued Claire), so maybe he empathizes with how people can do evil and remain worthy people. -- Carol P, 19:10:29 03/02/09 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
