[LMB] Monogamy

pouncer at aol.com pouncer at aol.com
Sun Jun 24 06:12:57 BST 2018


It seems to me analogous to Miles's remarks about Cordelia's 
adaptation to aristocracy.  Something along the lines of:

Democrats are fine with aristocracy, as long as they get to be
aristocrats.

Clearly, the monogamous are fine with polyamory, as long as
they wind up among those enjoying amore'. 

It's less clear to me that Aral was good for Jole. Just for one
obvious consideration, the dog that did not bark at night did 
not have a connection into the officers' wives gossip channels.  
 (Lest the importance of that information be dismissed, consider 
Alys's feckful "vote" in the Council of Counts) .  CJ&RQ reveals
to us a competent officer who was seen as having no 
private life at all, and as such one wonders if his subordinates,
struggling to balance private and professional responsibilities,
thought him likely to be unsympathetic.  

The dog that did not bark contented himself with what could
be taken, or offered, from beneath the (however abundant) table
 of others. Quietly, secretly, when time and events combined to
bring him to Aral's table, or bed.  And he lived alone and hungry
and silent else times. 

Jole  was apparently content, even happy, with table scraps. 
Which is consistent with my view of many alternative relationships
in our nominally monogamous real-word culture. The aristocratic,
the powerful, the wealthy, have the abundance to toss out scraps
to the young, cute, beguiled, and above all silent.  However, should 
a puppy become demanding -- its place near the table can easily 
become a place outside the house, or even beyond the fence.  


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list