June 14th, 2008


└ Tags: ,

Discussion (12)¬

  1. Haven says:

    Huh. Interesting that Digger doesn’t see this as a crime.

  2. NigaiAmai Yume says:

    Now, try explaining this all to Shadowchild…. *sighs*
    “Being good is hard”.

  3. Jon says:

    Several heads would explode in the attempt, Yume.

    And then implode. And possibly TRANSplode, whatever that means.

  4. Saphroneth says:

    It could come under the heading of justifiable homicide.
    And there is no due process in a warrior society – not where the custody of children might hold someone back, anyway.

  5. BunnyRock says:

    Domestic violence is recorded anthropologically in a lot of hunter-gatherer societies and is endemic in at least two Amazonian groups i can think of, but murdering a spouse is practically unheard of in most of them. Small-scale societies have to be pragmatic, by and large. What is the correct punishment for the crime? The one that works. If it is also fair, then good for you, if not…If it stops blood-feuds forming, if it stops violence escalating,if it slopes the victims extended family from openly attacking the “perpetrators” extended family, it may have to do.

  6. Lica says:

    shadowchild: “sigh…everything was easier when i just wanted to be a bird”

  7. Tindi says:

    Also, Boneclaw Mother and Owl Caller admitted Bloodmare outmaneuvered them. She pulled a classic bait and switch: First call for death, because a death for a death is a justifiable demand. Then, when Ed’s defenders say, “No, no anything but death!” the Blood team suddenly goes, “Anything?” Diabolically clever.

  8. Kisame says:

    Nothing wrong done? Just because one haves a good reason does not mean he can go and kill people. This is a very deep story. I don’t say Ed was wrong. But I don’t say he was right. I’m not sure there was another possibility but exiling him for his doing. Which was wrong. But if he won’t have got any punishment then people in the tribe would understand that they can kill other people and say they saw them beating up children. This is balance. Not good for the system. Nor bad for the system. A balance of one hurt, and so is the other, a sad but inevetable balance. this story is so deep

  9. Tindi says:

    Me again. Vetinari said it: “No practical discussion fo freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.”
    Ed knew there would be consequences for what he did. He still loved Blood Eyes a lot, so I’m sure death wouldn’t have seemed as awful at the time, depending on how the hyenas view the afterlife. His overriding need was to see that his little one was safe. After that was accomplished, the rest didn’t matter (as much).

  10. JET73L says:

    Ed looks so sad, so… old. Many things happened, some good, most bad. Life does that, but it’s not fair. It doesn’t need to be fair to work, it just needs to /work/. Ed expected consequence, living with eaten name was probably worse than death.

    I do wonder if who-would-be-Ed expected to meet Blood Eyes after his execution while her madness stayed behind. He did say it seemed like there were three of them, him, Blood Eyes, and Blood Eyes’ (or, if it’s semantically relevant, “hunter’s”) madness.

  11. The Procrastinator says:

    Digger’s right. It may not be fair. But it is just, at least within the frame of reference of a Hyena society. And, unfortunate as it may sometimes seem, civilisation is generally built on letting (pre-defined) justice take precedence over (perceived) fairness.

  12. Meira says:

    Also, many hyenas in the tribe witnessed the abuse and didn’t stop it. One one hand How could they, Ed didn’t leave. On the other, they let a crime continue, how do you punish the whole tribe?