The "Good" Peeps

Well said by RFC!


I stand by my earlier statement that the one Peep who has the strongest claim for being a good Peep is Rob Pierre because he reformed the corrupt welfare state that made it necessary for the PRH to conquer it's neighbors to avoid a catastrophic societal collapse. He also reformed the PRH military. In the process he made it inevitable that someone such as Thomas Thiesman would overthrow and no doubt kill him.

Has RFC ever done a post less than 500 words?

Michael Everett wrote:Has RFC ever done a post less than 500 words?

He replied to one of my posts with a smiley once. One of the proudest moments of my time on this board.

namelessfly wrote:Well said by RFC!

Indeed.

namelessfly wrote:I stand by my earlier statement that the one Peep who has the strongest claim for being a good Peep is Rob Pierre because he reformed the corrupt welfare state that made it necessary for the PRH to conquer it's neighbors to avoid a catastrophic societal collapse. He also reformed the PRH military. In the process he made it inevitable that someone such as Thomas Thiesman would overthrow and no doubt kill him.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

RFC addressed the matter comprehensively and I humbly agree with what he has said, with one minor quibble.
I personally had a minor example of this as I was a senior civilian member of our Defence force who was deeply involved in planning and supporting our part of the last Iraqi war.
I personally felt strongly against the action for a number of reasons that have since been proven, however I did my job to the best of my ability. Being a civilian I could have resigned but didn't as I believed our service personnel needed and deserved the best support they could get to ensure their safe return home.

Would anything have forced me to resign? If the rules of engagement had not been so rigorous (the US ones were much looser as they are now with drone strikes), if we had been ordered as RFC says to obey an "order which is illegal under your own nation's code of military conduct", or I would have gone further and resigned if I had been ordered to act in disregard of international law.
No "Just following orders mein herr" for me.

Thank You, RFC.

Michael Everett wrote:Has RFC ever done a post less than 500 words?

IIRC, RFC responded with a simple "No" to my suggestion that I should be a special production assistant on the movie set who would be responsible to applying the strategically placed soap bubbles on the actress who portrays Honor Harrington that would maintain the film's PG-13 rating.

I continue to suspect that RFC is reserving this enviable task for himself.

namelessfly wrote:IIRC, RFC responded with a simple "No" to my suggestion that I should be a special production assistant on the movie set who would be responsible to applying the strategically placed soap bubbles on the actress who portrays Honor Harrington that would maintain the film's PG-13 rating.

I continue to suspect that RFC is reserving this enviable task for himself.

I suspect he would develop contusions and other injuries if he tried.

Quite a few points raised, and even by RFC himself, which again makes me guilty of "robbing" him of precious time
Sorry folks and RFC (even though I'm sure you follow the boards out of passion!).

First of all: maybe I should have chosen my words differently.
I don't really consider Theisman &Co "bad" or "villains"... perhaps I should have addressed them as "reluctant villains".
Yes, that works better.
But I'll go in order.

Whitecold wrote:Here is the actual quote from AAC. Honor does not like her orders, and she's also not afraid of sacrificing herself. But doing so would not accomplish anything, all it would do is put someone else in charge...

The example doesn't really counter my argument as it doesn't take the "Original Sin" into account.
Of course several difficult, ambiguous situations arise during the war, which force painful decisions to serving officers, including Honor.
But the point is, it was the Peeps who wanted the war in the first place, with everything that it was going to produce, so the final death toll ultimately rests on their heads.

namelessfly wrote:While Pierre prosecuted the war with Manticore to obtain more loot to support the PRH, it was his intention that it would be the last conquest to keep the PRH viable while he reformed the economy and educational system. More importantly, Pierre exploited the war with Manricore to motivate Haven's indolent asses to learn how to perform useful work.

Partly I agree, but at best you could call Pierre "driven". He is still a villain.
Killing, robbing and enslaving other free people, even for the purpose of "saving" your own, is still an horrific proposition.
True, Haven was risking outright collapse, and the prospect of immeasurable sufferings.
Still, they should have accepted it as it was all their own doing, and certainly should NOT have imposed that the price for their own failure be paid by their neighbouring societies.

runsforcelery wrote:----

As always you make many compelling points, but allow me to reply in more general terms.
I cannot embrace fully the logic that the oath of an officer is absolutely binding when judging said officer's conduct.
If that were the case, then we'd have to condemn Yu's and Caslet's behavior, which I don't think many would do around here, either.
(by the same meter, Honor couldn't even have accepted their services, as they proved to be officers capable of breaking the officer's oath, by doing it at least once)
The way I see it, they never really broke their oath... they simply "tranferred" it to a place where it held more meaning.

Now, I do understand that a lot rests on the definition of what's "lawful" in terms of what is asked of them (and that that might be the key to correctly interpret Caslet's and Yu's defections), but once again I'm back to the issue of the "Original Sin".
As I said, at least in "our" fictional universe, there is a clear-cut, wrongful, one-sided Original Sin that produced the war in the first place, with the entire death toll descending from it down the road.
So Honor's and Theisman's positions cannot completely be compared.

Lastly, I do have to isolate a more specific answer to this point:

I find it interesting, however, that my Manticoran characters are so well aware of the risks which the Havenite reformers ran — even during the period of active hostilities between their star nations — while apparently some of the readers are not.

I assure you, I fully appreciate what you did with these characters, and the patience that it took to do it right and with the required time.
If it seemed otherwise, well, it's my fault but I was misunderstood.
And I do recognize the value of their courage. I myself would have acted like a true coward in their shoes, I'm all too aware.
What I'm saying is: for me, as a reader, reluctant though those characters are in partecipating in some of the actions of their Navy, they still feel like "villains" to me in a way that I cannot consciously control, in that I viscerally wish for their strategical efforts to fail, and fail hard (which doesn't happen, since they're good at their jobs).

Color me - if you want - as one of those people who, if put in a position like that of Anton or Helen Zilwicki, could not bring himself to fully forgive his former enemies, at least on an emotional level.
Hope that clarifies my feelings while underscoring my love for the books and ALL of the characters (though the Graysons will always have a special place, and remain the true soul of the stories, to me )

Dr. Arroway wrote:Quite a few points raised, and even by RFC himself, which again makes me guilty of "robbing" him of precious time
Sorry folks and RFC (even though I'm sure you follow the boards out of passion!).

First of all: maybe I should have chosen my words differently. SNIP

I have to say that I have some sympathy with Dr A, even given what RFC has said.

I'd point toward Amos Parnell and Eloise P in particular.

Throughout the cannon, AP is seen as a good 'soldier' and a good man. However I'd recently re-read OBS and the prologue in particular and it rather struck me that he was clearly laying out how to conquer other systems large and small for the benefit of the Peeps, knowing full well what he was delivering those populations to and showing no particular remorse or regret.

This is the topmost soldier and right at the top of the Legislaterist tree... if not him then who else could have changed things.

I know that he paid a bitter price later on, but all sides seem to highly respect him even before that was known, and I can't quite see that's right.

On Eloise - well I'd just point out that she was a highly regarded [by St Just] & feared State Sec commissioner. Given the competition amongst that group, that seems to suggest that she must have willingly purged many navel people and their entire families, and probably many other innocents in the general population, committing them to pain, grief and death.

I do like her, but... somehow that seems to be glossed over. I try to think of similar cases, say among the SS or the NKVD, and wonder if we would think the same?