February 12, 2005

• I answered that story once - but it was about Maid Marion and Robin Hood. Robin Hood was captured by the Sheriff of Nottingham, and would be executed unless Marion slept with the Sheriff. Sorta changes things a bit, I think.
• Ah, here's the version I heard. I got it slightly wrong (no mention that Robin would be executed ;). It also has personality scoring... if you can trust an anonymous website: http://derien.rulesthe.net/oddities/rhstory.htm Nb: No idea what the rest of the site is like, but this seems SFW.
• Sorry for the triple post, but to reply to Skrik's story: Bad-to-good: Bad Henry - scum all-round. Mary - love can wait, it wasn't life or death. Ferryman - he was going across anyway. Good John - I would do this if in the same position, but I also realise forgiveness is a virtue, so he's not the "best" character. Joe - People should always know the truth when it concerns them, so he's top of the books here. Yep, I'm fairly puritanical/old-fashioned...
• I want to punch John in the face just from reading that story. "Oh no, you did something extreme because you wanted to be with me that much. You must really love me. But only the sanctity of your vagina matters, you dirty whore." Cockpunch all around. I probably shouldn't be reading this, heh.
• Mary is bad because she is dishonest in hiding her prior exchange from John. Her degree of badness depends on the relative whiteness of her lie, as decided by the reader. Otherwise, all other decisions are made between consenting adults, and are neutral.
• Mary -- not good --failure to understand John's character, failure to understand Henry's character, failure to grasp nature of ferryman's employmentl; she's either not not a bright person or singularly self-centered/ignorant. Does not tell John how she got the money for the ferry ride and seems to think Henry won't tell, either. Ferryman -- not bad --doesn't wish to jeopardize his job, follows empoyer's rules, appears to be the only person in the story fulfilling his obligations (to his employer) Henry -- not good -- see's Mary's vulnerability, pays her, then tells everyone in the community they had sex (assuming Mary does not), either unable to keep his mouth shut or a malicious/troublie-making individual or simply an unthinking braggart Joe -- not good -- unable to keep his mouth shut or else a malicious/trouble-making busybody; his behaviour leads me to wonder if he has some personal interest/involvement in destroyig the John-Mary relationshsip? John -- not good -- failure to understand Mary, also probable hard-hearted/narrow thinking, allows himself to be manipulated by Joe/community gossip
• Bad: John - Stupid. Unsympathetic. Selfish (why didn't he go across to see Mary?). Joe - Honesty? Perhaps. Destructiveness? Definitely. He should have weighed the consequences and perhaps have told Mary he knew about it, giving her the choice of telling John herself. Not good or bad: Ferryman - it's a question of ethics versus emotional sympathy. Ethically, it would have been wrong of him to allow Mary across without payment. If John had been on his deathbed or something, that would be a different matter. Mary - *sigh*. Silly. Sort of like Juliet, rather too hasty to look for immediate solutions, and ends up doing rather extreme things for love. If John's life were at stake, I would have more sympathy; but if it's just to meet up, then she should have spent time looking for alternatives (work, getting John over to her side, lobbing rocks in the river etc...). Henry - I don't call him bad because he didn't coerce Mary into the deal. He's not forcing her or blackmailing her into an affair; it's a transaction, straight and simple. He might have bragged about it later, or maybe not. I definitely would have more respect for him if he didn't.
• Worst to Best: Henry: much badness. Selfish, exploitative, uncaring. I see nothing redeemable in his behaviour, no matter how the narrative tries to frame it as an equal transaction. Ferryman: fairly bad. Had the opportunity to help someone at no cost to himself (or his employers), refused to do so. Good example of how theoretically neutral actions (or inactions) can have negative consequences. Joe: A bit bad, but with good intentions. He was at least honest, and may have felt morally compelled to do what he did, but he must have known that his actions could do nothing but harm. (Note: If Joe was in the position that the gossip was so widepread that it was highly likely, or inevitable, that John would find out from someone else, then he becomes far less at fault. Better coming from someone who cares, etc. But the scenario doesn't currently suggest that this is the case.) Mary and John: Can't seperate them in terms of morality (although Mary, I agree, seems a little lacking in the common sense department.) Mary did what she thought she needed to do for love, John had no control over his feelings for Mary changing after he found out what she'd done. Largely, both are innocent victims of circumstance; Mary's deceitfulness and John lack of sympathy are perhaps the things which most portray them in a bad light.
• Best to worst: Ferryman - just doing his job. You have to pay to cross. He'd be nicer if he made an exception, but why should he? There's no extreme circumstance stated in the story that he should bend the rules for. Probably the best one here. Joe - is he a busybody telling his friend "for his own good"? Was he being gossipy or was he being a good friend? Hard to tell without more backstory. If there was any bit of maliciousness or moralizing self-righteousness to his telling John, I'd rank him below Mary. Mary - over-reaction to non-extreme situation, and she should have told John how she got the money for the ticket, absolutely; she is wrong for not telling him. But compared to John, she comes out not so bad, since at least she was trying to do *something* to bring them together. John - meh. Pretty jerky. Mary should have told him herself about Henry, instead of him hearing it from Joe: so he's quite right in being upset about that. But she did it for his sake - and he leaves her? What was *he* doing to try and get across to her? *Nothing* as far as the story tells us. Henry - if he really liked Mary he would have lent her the money instead of asking for sex in return. And, yeah, how did everyone find out if he wasn't sharing the info? He's probably the worst here. As for Gestas's "Robin Hood/Maid Marion" link, I'd rank them best to worst: Little John, Maid Marion, Sheriff, Robin. Although to me Little John and Marion are about equal and the Sheriff and Robin are about equal. The Sheriff is very wrong but you expect him to be evil - Robin, on the other hand, comes off a complete jerk towards a woman he supposedly loves.
• Henry - Worst. Took advantage of a situation for his own lecherous needs. Mary - Very bad. Traded sex for a measly ferry ticket? And this was't 'for John'...it was for herself-she gets pleasure from seeing John and this act was to feed her own need. John - Somewhat bad. Perhaps a better man would have forgiven her one transgression, but his actions are understandable. Joe - Had nothing to gain personally from telling John, so it looks like he was just looking out for a friend. Ferryman - Just doing his job.
• Dear Mary and John: Learn to fucking swim already. Love, Mac.
• This actually was part of a Farscape plot, I think...at least a debate, between Chiana and D'Argo. It is more black and white with higher stakes (ie the Maid Marian/Robin example). Then the answer is very simple - Maid Marion simply does what she has to do. This example is more difficult - the stakes are not clear at all. But if it had been that Mary and John were to be separated for ever, then those would be very high stakes. Fidelity is a very important thing, but why do people interpret fidelity as not rubbing body parts with another person, rather than as loyalty? If someone degrades themselves like that for the sake of another person, how is this disloyal to them? It is not easy to accept that someone with whom you are in love would be physical with someone else, because we attach so much significance to physical intimacy in our culture, but does it even approach the badness of never seeing the person you love again? And to know that they did this thing which may have been very difficult, for your sake? The second person should rather be thanking them, guilty that they have done so much, that they could not have protected their lover. (I am conciously gender neutral in my language - this could go either way. Actually, again on Farscape, they did it gender reversed, only that was to help/save friends.)
• Can't these people quit living their lives like they're in a soap opera?
• Hmm. My French tutor tells an interesting one that reminds me of this, but it's less pleasant: A man gets a job that involves a lot of travel, and his wife grows bored and decides to take a lover. One day, she crosses the river to see him and stays the night, knowing that she has to be sure to be home the next morning when her husband gets in, or he'll figure it out. She sets out the next morning but upon reaching the bridge, she is met by a madman who will not let her cross. In fact, he says that he will kill her if she tries. But she must, she says, and explains her predicament. Unmoved, the madman says that he will not let her cross, unless perhaps she gives him some money. She has no money, she says, so the madman sends her back. Panicked, the woman stops a passerby and begs the passerby for some money, explaining the situation. The passerby says no and moves on. The woman then spots a friend, and she quickly tells her friend what she needs, but the friend doesn't like what she's been doing and so says no. The woman rushes home to her lover. There she asks if he'll give her the money and he says no, I'm not giving you money -- get out! So out she goes and returns to the bridge, asking the madman one last time if he'll let her cross. The madman again refuses, so she attempts to cross the bridge and the madman kills her. The question is: whose fault is it that the woman is dead? The husband? The woman? The lover? The passerby, friend, or madman? My French tutor likes it because it spawns debate! (en francais, bien sur!)
• If someone degrades themselves like that for the sake of another person, how is this disloyal to them? And to know that they did this thing which may have been very difficult, for your sake? js: That's not the way the question is worded. "Mary wants to be with John, so she goes to the ferryman...". She didn't do it for him, she did it for herself.
• Ah, rocket88, you've hit on an interesting point about love. At what point does one's actions for love (or the object of one's affections), become selfish? I want to be with the one I love, so I go to sleep with another guy to get money. I want to make my love happy, so I queue all night to get tickets to his favourite movie. Is the first statement really more selfish than the second? Or are you assuming that John doesn't want to be with Mary? Or not as much as she wants to be with him?
• jb: Which Farscape episode are you talking about? I can think of a couple that might be close, but I would have to watch them to see (which I can having all the eps). Damn I love that show. I second macs emotion on this one :)
• Alnedra, that's a whole topic of it's own. I would say that it *is* selfish, in a way, because when you get right down to it, being in love may be nothing more than an addiction to the endorphin release triggered by pheramones from another person (very unromantic of me, I know). To cheat on someone and then justify it by saying you did it for them, out of love, is a twisted logic that I just can't get my head around.
• I would partly agree with you. I much prefer the Robin Hood/Maid Marion case, where it's much more clearcut. In this situation, it's too hard to even guess at motives. Not only of Mary, but Henry, John and Joe. Only the ferryman's motives are fairly easy to gauge. To cheat on someone and then justify it by saying you did it for them There are certain circumstances where morality cannot be served no matter the action taken. In the case of Maid Marion, she can remain chaste for the sake of Robin Hood, but then it means Robin and Little John remain incarcerated and possibly to be executed. If she sleeps with the Sherriff, she loses her fidelity but helps the two men gain their freedom. Damned both ways.
• gren - I think Chiana seduces someone to get info, pissing off D'Argo, and John goes back to Graza to buy time for the others (season 4).