[LMB] Trusting Lakewalkers

pouncer at aol.com pouncer at aol.com
Fri Aug 9 16:19:43 BST 2019

ony Z: >> To be sure, the clerk was  being (mostly) needlessly obstructive.  
>>But Fawn spotted that there > were issues, and then the question ... just 
>> doesn't get brought up  again. 
Gwynne: >That's one of the most important moments in the books. And it tells
>us a great deal about us as well as the characters. Is it ok that Dag 
>violated one of his own rules for a good cause? And where do we/they 
>draw the line? ...After all the difficult decisions and challenging 
>situations, after we watched Dag build a whole new worldview and 
>admired his ethics, how do we deal with him throwing it all away in a moment?
>And how far can we really trust any Lakewalkers, when a little push will
>get them anything they want? How can we blame Barr for his attitude
>and behaviour as a young lout, when that predatory attitude is the norm?

Well, if Lakewalkers could in practice "get anything they want" via
persuasions or beguilement (and I think we need to preserve a distinction
between those concepts)  then Aunt Mari wouldn't be parading Dag's
disability around Glassforge to inspire sympathy.  That's a persuasive
technique that has nothing to do with groundwork.

So said,  the Farmers and shop keepers at Pearl Riffle do NOT trust
Lakewalkers --nor is Barr's attitude particularly inconsistent with the
general tension there.  The steel pot myth could not have taken root
so quickly and strongly had the "ground" not been plowed, manured, 
watered and ready. Shopkeeper seemed to expect that Lakewalkers
could, if not always did, influence a trade, or a game, or a fight, in
their own favor.  (And in fights, perhaps it was generally true)  So
a way to take control was a welcome concept. 

Those same shop keepers will welcome the walnut necklaces for
similar reasons, even if they never intend to face or fight a malice. 

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list