Dr. Vossil in Inversions
Longshadow
Please forgive me if this topic has been explored before.
If you have not read Inversions, then stop here, there may be spoilers ahead.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I enjoyed Inversions very much, and it left me thinking. Dr. Vossil's
miraculous escape from the torture chamber... I think that Vossil is a Culture
agent, and that her trusty old dull edged, beat up knife is a drone.
What do you think?
Longshadow
Richard Puchalsky
news:uSll5.15489$c5.7...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Hello all,
>
> Please forgive me if this topic has been explored before.
>
> If you have not read Inversions, then stop here, there may be spoilers
ahead.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> I enjoyed Inversions very much, and it left me thinking. Dr. Vossil's
> miraculous escape from the torture chamber... I think that Vossil is a
Culture
> agent, and that her trusty old dull edged, beat up knife is a drone.
>
> What do you think?
I think that that was so evident, from the beginning of the book, that it
left me without any sense of mystery. Check on Zakalwe's speech to the
Ethnarch in Use of Weapons.
Just as the identity of the assassin who is due to take out the General is
evident from the first scene in which the character is introduced.
Piers Manson
well. The two friends in the story, I guess, are Vosill and De War.
Ken Manson
Richard Puchalsky
"Piers Manson" <m03c...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:39970EFB...@cwcom.net...
> Yes, and the bodyguard's story about the two friends -- he is Culture as
> well. The two friends in the story, I guess, are Vosill and De War.
>
The bodyguard's stories make absolutely no sense without the obvious
interpretation that they are both Culture. Here are what I think are the
main points:
1. The bodyguard and the doctor were two members of the Culture, close
friends, who used to argue about what methods the Culture should use in
interfering in other civilizations;
2. The doctor used to argue that the Culture should always be kind; the
bodyguard used to argue that they should be cruel to be kind;
3. They used to argue using a particular medieval-stage planet as their case
example;
4. After a number of experiences, the doctor joins Contact as an agent; the
bodyguard gets disgusted with the Culture and leaves it;
5. They both end up on the same planet, unbeknownst to each other, because
it was always the one that they were both interested in, after all;
6. They both have the same assigned or self-chosen mission, of protecting
and influencing what they think are relatively good leaders, which they
carry out according to their two philosophies;
7. The doctor is forced to use deadly force to protect herself in the course
of her mission, while the bodyguard finds himself too kind-hearted to
suspect the obvious suspect, thus failing in his.
I've seen people wonder if the two roles actually aren't reversed. Nope,
the Doctor has a scar on her skull that the torturer notices when he shaves
her hair; the bodyguard mentions how the one of the two Culture people who
believed in always being kind got a scar on her skull when she fell into a
pool with rocks in it after the one who believed in being cruel to be kind
decided to teach her a lesson. Therefore the Doctor is the one of the pair
who believed in always being kind, and is the Contact agent. She also has a
defensive drone in the form of her knife and the bodyguard doesn't,
confirming that she's the agent and he's the ex-Culture renegade.
I've seen someone put forth the idea that the Doctor's mission is actually
to kill all the people who suspiciously die around her -- other than the
obvious ones who are killed by her drone at the end. That's silly, at least
in the sense that she'd personally have anything to do with it. The Culture
may be limited in what it can do in places like Beychae's planet in Use of
Weapons, or in the Empire of Azad, where there is some level of
technological sophistication. In a medieval world they could effectorize
anyone they wanted to death in ways that would just look like various
accidents or diseases. Which leads to the question of whether the Doctor's
drone is doing just that. I doubt it; the Culture would never go in for
random killings of minor medieval bad guys, so the drone would have to have
a very maladjusted personality. It's more likely that the various early
knife murders are all committed by agents of the Captain of the Guard, who
obviously doesn't like having various plotters around who may not have the
best interests of the King in mind.
Scott Beeler
>"Piers Manson" <m03c...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:39970EFB...@cwcom.net...
_Inversions_ heavy SPOILERS...
>The bodyguard's stories make absolutely no sense without the obvious
>interpretation that they are both Culture. Here are what I think are the
>main points:
[snip lots of stuff I agree with: Doctor is SC, Bodyguard is solo
ex-Culture]
>3. They used to argue using a particular medieval-stage planet as their case
>example;
>
>5. They both end up on the same planet, unbeknownst to each other, because
>it was always the one that they were both interested in, after all;
This is possible, though I don't remember any justification in the
text for it. It could just be authorial use of coincidence.
>6. They both have the same assigned or self-chosen mission, of protecting
>and influencing what they think are relatively good leaders, which they
>carry out according to their two philosophies;
Hmm, it could be argued that they have each *changed* their
philosophies since the days of the two friends in the stories (or else
it's the emergence of their own natures -- i.e. the bodyguard's
kind-heartedness, like you say). After all, DeWar uses very few
"cruel to be kind" means in his job, just doing what any other
bodyguard would do. He's also particularly kind to Lattens and
Perrund. As for Vossil, it depends on your view of the killings, in
part. But there's also the thing going on with the poisoning of
Lattens being orchestrated by someone close to King Quience, using a
substance eerily very similar to Vossil's stuff in the first chapter.
That's *definitely* a "cruel-to-be-kind" action.
>7. The doctor is forced to use deadly force to protect herself in the course
>of her mission, while the bodyguard finds himself too kind-hearted to
>suspect the obvious suspect, thus failing in his.
The bodyguard is too kind-hearted, yes, but is Perrund really the
obvious suspect? As emphatically mentioned in the book, she had
*saved* the Protector from an assassination attempt years before, and
seemed to be one of his closest confidants.
>I've seen someone put forth the idea that the Doctor's mission is actually
>to kill all the people who suspiciously die around her -- other than the
>obvious ones who are killed by her drone at the end. That's silly, at least
>in the sense that she'd personally have anything to do with it. The Culture
>may be limited in what it can do in places like Beychae's planet in Use of
>Weapons, or in the Empire of Azad, where there is some level of
>technological sophistication. In a medieval world they could effectorize
>anyone they wanted to death in ways that would just look like various
>accidents or diseases. Which leads to the question of whether the Doctor's
>drone is doing just that. I doubt it; the Culture would never go in for
>random killings of minor medieval bad guys, so the drone would have to have
>a very maladjusted personality.
What, like Sma's drone in _Use of Weapons_? Or Gurgeh's drone in Azad
in _Player of Games_? That's my current theory, that it's a drone
disguised as Vossil's dagger that's doing the killing. Well, not Duke
Ormin, killed with one of Vossil's scalpels, which is obviously a
setup. But the final killings are obviously the drone, to stop her
from being tortured. The first torturer I suspect is as well just
because I don't know who else would have done it (he's surely not
deeply involved in intrigues with Duke Quettil or anything). But an
SC drone, disgusted by the primitive torture practice, knowing that
the torturer hated Vossil, slightly off his leash... I can see it.
However, this isn't a really strong opinion.
The interesting case is Duke Quettil's murder at the ball. Vossil
obviously tries *hard* to save him, even using mouth-to-mouth, which
the locals know nothing about. So she seems not responsible for his
murder. But the "dark bird" comment by the witness is just too
temptingly like a drone or knife missile. That suggests to me her
drone doing it on its own, for whatever reason -- aggressive response
to perceived threat, extreme dislike after learning of hidden
intrigues, etc.
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Richard Puchalsky
> "Richard Puchalsky" <rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
> _Inversions_ heavy SPOILERS...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >3. They used to argue using a particular medieval-stage planet as their
case
> >example;
> >
> >5. They both end up on the same planet, unbeknownst to each other,
because
> >it was always the one that they were both interested in, after all;
>
> This is possible, though I don't remember any justification in the
> text for it. It could just be authorial use of coincidence.
It could, but it makes more sense if it's because they were both interested
in this planet. Otherwise, why have DeWar mention that in his story? Banks
seems to rarely mention things like that without a reason.
An interesting question is whether the Culture Minds knew that DeWar was
there. They certainly must have known about the King's plan to take care of
the General. Did a Mind decide that, just as DeWar had earlier tried to
teach Vossill a lesson in the Culture, that DeWar should be taught a lesson
now?
>
> >6. They both have the same assigned or self-chosen mission, of protecting
> >and influencing what they think are relatively good leaders, which they
> >carry out according to their two philosophies;
>
> Hmm, it could be argued that they have each *changed* their
> philosophies since the days of the two friends in the stories (or else
> it's the emergence of their own natures -- i.e. the bodyguard's
> kind-heartedness, like you say). After all, DeWar uses very few
> "cruel to be kind" means in his job, just doing what any other
> bodyguard would do.
DeWar kills people to do his job. The Culture would certainly consider that
to be regrettable. DeWar specifically mentions being ready to kill with a
bit of guiltiness about it.
> He's also particularly kind to Lattens and
> Perrund. As for Vossil, it depends on your view of the killings, in
> part. But there's also the thing going on with the poisoning of
> Lattens being orchestrated by someone close to King Quience, using a
> substance eerily very similar to Vossil's stuff in the first chapter.
> That's *definitely* a "cruel-to-be-kind" action.
Hmm. I'd have to look back at that part. But that really doesn't seem to
fit what we know about the Doctor, to think that she'd be willing to risk
poisoning a kid to death in that way.
>
> >7. The doctor is forced to use deadly force to protect herself in the
course
> >of her mission, while the bodyguard finds himself too kind-hearted to
> >suspect the obvious suspect, thus failing in his.
>
> The bodyguard is too kind-hearted, yes, but is Perrund really the
> obvious suspect? As emphatically mentioned in the book, she had
> *saved* the Protector from an assassination attempt years before, and
> seemed to be one of his closest confidants.
DeWar, as clearly shown in the punching-the-hole-in-the-wall scene, knows
that the General is most vulnerable in the harem. But maybe you're right, I
knew that Perrund was it right from the beginning where she makes her speech
about DeWar being too focussed on not losing the main piece in his game. I
immediately knew what that meant because of the way that Banks writes.
DeWar might have just ignored it, though I thought it was pretty suspicious
even within context. But later on, DeWar hears Perrund's horrible rape
story and must realize that it conflicts pretty heavily with the General's
brag to him about how Perrund enjoys sex so much.
> >Which leads to the question of whether the Doctor's
> >drone is doing just that. I doubt it; the Culture would never go in for
> >random killings of minor medieval bad guys, so the drone would have to
have
> >a very maladjusted personality.
>
> What, like Sma's drone in _Use of Weapons_? Or Gurgeh's drone in Azad
> in _Player of Games_?
Those were both single incidents, done under the excuse of combat. This was
a series of assassinations. It's possible, sure, but is every SC drone
supposed to be maladjusted?
> That's my current theory, that it's a drone
> disguised as Vossil's dagger that's doing the killing. Well, not Duke
> Ormin, killed with one of Vossil's scalpels, which is obviously a
> setup. But the final killings are obviously the drone, to stop her
> from being tortured.
I agree on both of those.
> The first torturer I suspect is as well just
> because I don't know who else would have done it (he's surely not
> deeply involved in intrigues with Duke Quettil or anything).
My theory is that the Captain of the Guard did it, because he knew that the
torturer was plotting against Vossill. The Captain of the Guard seems to be
loyally protecting the King, though with underhanded means, and he wouldn't
want someone killing the King's physician without sufficient reason.
Framing the torturer's apprentice for the murder, and then killing him in
jail, is just something that I can't see even a highly weird Culture drone
doing. It is the way that the Captain of the Guard operates, though.
> The interesting case is Duke Quettil's murder at the ball. Vossil
> obviously tries *hard* to save him, even using mouth-to-mouth, which
> the locals know nothing about.
Unless she was putting a poison capsule into his mouth, _Watchman_ style ...
heh heh, no I don't really beleive that.
> So she seems not responsible for his
> murder. But the "dark bird" comment by the witness is just too
> temptingly like a drone or knife missile. That suggests to me her
> drone doing it on its own, for whatever reason -- aggressive response
> to perceived threat, extreme dislike after learning of hidden
> intrigues, etc.
We know that the Captain of the Guard knows about Quettil's intrigues,
because the Captain was intrigueing with him. Again, my theory is that the
Captain decided that Quettil was overstepping and plotting in a way that
could affect the King adversely, and so betrayed him and had him
assassinated.
If the drone did it, it's a really clumsy drone. It could kill any of the
people involved in their beds with no one being the wiser.
Good comments, by the way.
Scott Beeler
>"Scott Beeler" <scbe...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Richard Puchalsky" <rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> _Inversions_ heavy SPOILERS...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> >3. They used to argue using a particular medieval-stage planet as their
>> >case example;
>> >
>> >5. They both end up on the same planet, unbeknownst to each other,
>because
>> >it was always the one that they were both interested in, after all;
>>
>> This is possible, though I don't remember any justification in the
>> text for it. It could just be authorial use of coincidence.
>
>It could, but it makes more sense if it's because they were both interested
>in this planet. Otherwise, why have DeWar mention that in his story? Banks
>seems to rarely mention things like that without a reason.
Does DeWar mention the friends discussed a particular planet as an
example? I don't remember that. If so, I think you're definitely
right that that's why they both end up in the same place.
>An interesting question is whether the Culture Minds knew that DeWar was
>there. They certainly must have known about the King's plan to take care of
>the General. Did a Mind decide that, just as DeWar had earlier tried to
>teach Vossill a lesson in the Culture, that DeWar should be taught a lesson
>now?
Interesting indeed. I've wondered if the local Mind knew about DeWar
myself. He might have just been caught in the middle.
>> Hmm, it could be argued that they have each *changed* their
>> philosophies since the days of the two friends in the stories (or else
>> it's the emergence of their own natures -- i.e. the bodyguard's
>> kind-heartedness, like you say). After all, DeWar uses very few
>> "cruel to be kind" means in his job, just doing what any other
>> bodyguard would do.
>
>DeWar kills people to do his job. The Culture would certainly consider that
>to be regrettable. DeWar specifically mentions being ready to kill with a
>bit of guiltiness about it.
Still, killing assassins doesn't seem really "cruel". I would think
most assassins have a good idea what they're in for if they fail. I
don't remember DeWar taking any extreme measures just because he
*suspects* somebody of being a threat -- that would be something more
toward "cruel".
Anyway, even if killing assassins might be considered gauche by
Culture standards, DeWar still is in a very passive position compared
to how I see Vossil. He's only protecting the status quo and letting
the Protector do what he sees fit, not taking any harsh steps to
produce some long-term-good change.
>> He's also particularly kind to Lattens and
>> Perrund. As for Vossil, it depends on your view of the killings, in
>> part. But there's also the thing going on with the poisoning of
>> Lattens being orchestrated by someone close to King Quience, using a
>> substance eerily very similar to Vossil's stuff in the first chapter.
>> That's *definitely* a "cruel-to-be-kind" action.
>
>Hmm. I'd have to look back at that part. But that really doesn't seem to
>fit what we know about the Doctor, to think that she'd be willing to risk
>poisoning a kid to death in that way.
Yes, which is what brings up the interesting possibility that she has
become convinced that you *do* have to be cruel to be kind in order to
best influence the society in the long run. Harm to an innocent here
serves to completely destroy the discovered-to-be-nasty Protector, in
favor of the more enlightened King Quience.
>> The bodyguard is too kind-hearted, yes, but is Perrund really the
>> obvious suspect? As emphatically mentioned in the book, she had
>> *saved* the Protector from an assassination attempt years before, and
>> seemed to be one of his closest confidants.
>
>DeWar, as clearly shown in the punching-the-hole-in-the-wall scene, knows
>that the General is most vulnerable in the harem. But maybe you're right, I
>knew that Perrund was it right from the beginning where she makes her speech
>about DeWar being too focussed on not losing the main piece in his game. I
>immediately knew what that meant because of the way that Banks writes.
>DeWar might have just ignored it, though I thought it was pretty suspicious
>even within context. But later on, DeWar hears Perrund's horrible rape
>story and must realize that it conflicts pretty heavily with the General's
>brag to him about how Perrund enjoys sex so much.
I didn't catch either of those myself on my first read. I thought the
game comment was just sly teasing, and missed completely the comment
about Perrund enjoying sex so much.
>> The first torturer I suspect is as well just
>> because I don't know who else would have done it (he's surely not
>> deeply involved in intrigues with Duke Quettil or anything).
>
>My theory is that the Captain of the Guard did it, because he knew that the
>torturer was plotting against Vossill. The Captain of the Guard seems to be
>loyally protecting the King, though with underhanded means, and he wouldn't
>want someone killing the King's physician without sufficient reason.
>Framing the torturer's apprentice for the murder, and then killing him in
>jail, is just something that I can't see even a highly weird Culture drone
>doing. It is the way that the Captain of the Guard operates, though.
You could be right about that. Though the apprentice didn't really
seemed *framed* for it by any evidence (in fact Vossil provided
significant evidence it *wasn't* him though they ignore her). They
just knew he had been mistreated by the torturer, saw him
(understandably) run after finding the body, and assumed he did it.
Vossil could have had the knife planted after failing to convince the
others of his innocence.
> > The interesting case is Duke Quettil's murder at the ball. Vossil
>> obviously tries *hard* to save him, even using mouth-to-mouth, which
>> the locals know nothing about.
>
>Unless she was putting a poison capsule into his mouth, _Watchman_ style ...
>heh heh, no I don't really beleive that.
>
>> So she seems not responsible for his
>> murder. But the "dark bird" comment by the witness is just too
>> temptingly like a drone or knife missile. That suggests to me her
>> drone doing it on its own, for whatever reason -- aggressive response
>> to perceived threat, extreme dislike after learning of hidden
>> intrigues, etc.
>
>We know that the Captain of the Guard knows about Quettil's intrigues,
>because the Captain was intrigueing with him. Again, my theory is that the
>Captain decided that Quettil was overstepping and plotting in a way that
>could affect the King adversely, and so betrayed him and had him
>assassinated.
>
>If the drone did it, it's a really clumsy drone. It could kill any of the
>people involved in their beds with no one being the wiser.
Yep, that makes it difficult. Either it has a reason for making it
look like a murder, or it doesn't care. Or else it is Adlain or
someone else. But still, "dark bird." "Dark Bird!"
>Good comments, by the way.
It is certainly a good book for provoking discussion... :-)
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Richard Puchalsky
> >> _Inversions_ heavy SPOILERS...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> Does DeWar mention the friends discussed a particular planet as an
> example? I don't remember that. If so, I think you're definitely
> right that that's why they both end up in the same place.
I remembered that it was mentioned, but it was actually Vossill who said it.
From pg 105 (hardback):
"What was it you argued about, mistress?"
"Lots of things, or lots of aspects of the same thing. Whether the might
beyond might had a right to impose its values on others." She looked at my
puzzled expression and laughed. "We argued about here, for one thing."
"Here, mistress?" I asked, looking around.
"About--" She seemed to catch herself, the said, "About Haspide, The Empire.
About this whole other hemisphere."
>
> I didn't catch either of those myself on my first read. I thought the
> game comment was just sly teasing, and missed completely the comment
> about Perrund enjoying sex so much.
>
I thought the game comment was foreshadowing with a 2-by-4. On pg.s 30-33,
Perrund says she's after DeWar's Protector, then she tells him that his
obsession with the Protector is a weakness and that one of his Generals will
take its place if it falls, and then DeWar says "there is some very special
assassin here, just waiting for the right time to strike."
> You could be right about that. Though the apprentice didn't really
> seemed *framed* for it by any evidence (in fact Vossil provided
> significant evidence it *wasn't* him though they ignore her). They
> just knew he had been mistreated by the torturer, saw him
> (understandably) run after finding the body, and assumed he did it.
> Vossil could have had the knife planted after failing to convince the
> others of his innocence.
I doubt it. He seemed like a pre-planned patsy.
> Yep, that makes it difficult. Either it has a reason for making it
> look like a murder, or it doesn't care. Or else it is Adlain or
> someone else. But still, "dark bird." "Dark Bird!"
Well, it was evidently spying around, or something was, as we know because
of the transcipts of conversations that the Doctor keeps getting.
Scott Beeler
>"Scott Beeler" <scbe...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
>> >> _Inversions_ heavy SPOILERS...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> Does DeWar mention the friends discussed a particular planet as an
>> example? I don't remember that. If so, I think you're definitely
>> right that that's why they both end up in the same place.
>
>I remembered that it was mentioned, but it was actually Vossill who said it.
>From pg 105 (hardback):
>
>"What was it you argued about, mistress?"
>"Lots of things, or lots of aspects of the same thing. Whether the might
>beyond might had a right to impose its values on others." She looked at my
>puzzled expression and laughed. "We argued about here, for one thing."
>"Here, mistress?" I asked, looking around.
>"About--" She seemed to catch herself, the said, "About Haspide, The Empire.
>About this whole other hemisphere."
Ah, gotcha. I remember now. Yeah, that does indeed explain why they
end up in the same place. Thanks.
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Michael Morris
Here's a culture reference from the epilogue which I always enjoyed ....
It's at the point when Vosill disappears from her cabin in the ship at night
during a storm, presumably having been teleported off-planet by SC into a
waiting GCU.
" ... - the Doctor had been invited to dine with the vessel's captain that
evening, but had sent a note declining the invitation, citing an
indisposition due to special circumstances.
By the next morning it was realised she was gone."
Does anyone have any comment on the significance of DeWar and Perrund's
banking symbol which is mentioned on the last page of the book .... "a
simple torus, a ring, such as might be cut from one end of a hollow pipe."
Is there a Culture link to the symbol?
Mike
Scott Beeler
>Inversions spoilers ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Does anyone have any comment on the significance of DeWar and Perrund's
>banking symbol which is mentioned on the last page of the book .... "a
>simple torus, a ring, such as might be cut from one end of a hollow pipe."
>Is there a Culture link to the symbol?
A personal link for DeWar. In one of his stories, [he] saves
[Vosill's] life when she's trapped in a river by giving her a hollow
tube to breathe through. After which she makes him a present of a
little wooden ring cut from it.
--
Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Steven Pearson
At 10:47pm Yesterday, Michael Morris said:
:Inversions spoilers ...
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:Does anyone have any comment on the significance of DeWar and Perrund's
:banking symbol which is mentioned on the last page of the book .... "a
:simple torus, a ring, such as might be cut from one end of a hollow pipe."
:Is there a Culture link to the symbol?
It put me very much in the mind of the 'standard' three-dimensional
representation of the Reality, used (briefly IIRC) in Player of Games and,
at greater length, in Excession.
Steve.
--
Just another victim of the ambient morality
Horza
Scott Beeler <scbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3999ca1...@news.mindspring.com...
> "Michael Morris" <mm...@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>
> >Inversions spoilers ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Does anyone have any comment on the significance of DeWar and Perrund's
> >banking symbol which is mentioned on the last page of the book .... "a
> >simple torus, a ring, such as might be cut from one end of a hollow
pipe."
> >Is there a Culture link to the symbol?
>
> A personal link for DeWar. In one of his stories, [he] saves
> [Vosill's] life when she's trapped in a river by giving her a hollow
> tube to breathe through. After which she makes him a present of a
> little wooden ring cut from it.
>
> --
> Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
Remember the obital bracelet given as a gift in TPOG ?
Would rings assume a special meaning for Culture citizens?
<end of delurk>
----------------
There are only three people in the world,
and two of them are hamburgers...
Captain Beefheart
joec...@gmail.com
> "Richard Puchalsky" <rpuch...@att.net> wrote:
> >news:39970EFB...@cwcom.net...
>
>
> _Inversions_ heavy SPOILERS...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >The bodyguard's stories make absolutely no sense without the obvious
> >interpretation that they are both Culture. Here are what I think are the
> >main points:
> [snip lots of stuff I agree with: Doctor is SC, Bodyguard is solo
> ex-Culture]
> >example;
> >
>
> This is possible, though I don't remember any justification in the
> text for it. It could just be authorial use of coincidence.
>
> >and influencing what they think are relatively good leaders, which they
> >carry out according to their two philosophies;
>
> philosophies since the days of the two friends in the stories (or else
> it's the emergence of their own natures -- i.e. the bodyguard's
> kind-heartedness, like you say). After all, DeWar uses very few
> "cruel to be kind" means in his job, just doing what any other
> part. But there's also the thing going on with the poisoning of
> Lattens being orchestrated by someone close to King Quience, using a
> substance eerily very similar to Vossil's stuff in the first chapter.
> That's *definitely* a "cruel-to-be-kind" action.
>
> >of her mission, while the bodyguard finds himself too kind-hearted to
> >suspect the obvious suspect, thus failing in his.
>
> obvious suspect? As emphatically mentioned in the book, she had
> *saved* the Protector from an assassination attempt years before, and
> seemed to be one of his closest confidants.
>
> >to kill all the people who suspiciously die around her -- other than the
> >obvious ones who are killed by her drone at the end. That's silly, at least
> >in the sense that she'd personally have anything to do with it. The Culture
> >may be limited in what it can do in places like Beychae's planet in Use of
> >Weapons, or in the Empire of Azad, where there is some level of
> >technological sophistication. In a medieval world they could effectorize
> >anyone they wanted to death in ways that would just look like various
> >random killings of minor medieval bad guys, so the drone would have to have
> >a very maladjusted personality.
>
> What, like Sma's drone in _Use of Weapons_? Or Gurgeh's drone in Azad
> Ormin, killed with one of Vossil's scalpels, which is obviously a
> setup. But the final killings are obviously the drone, to stop her
> SC drone, disgusted by the primitive torture practice, knowing that
> the torturer hated Vossil, slightly off his leash... I can see it.
> However, this isn't a really strong opinion.
>
> obviously tries *hard* to save him, even using mouth-to-mouth, which
> temptingly like a drone or knife missile. That suggests to me her
> drone doing it on its own, for whatever reason -- aggressive response
> to perceived threat, extreme dislike after learning of hidden
> intrigues, etc.
>
> Scott Beeler scbe...@mindspring.com
~~~13 years!
> But there's also the thing going on with the poisoning of
> Lattens being orchestrated by someone close to King Quience, using a
> substance eerily very similar to Vossil's stuff in the first chapter.
DeWar could easily be the softer one: for a start, which of the two is more likely to join SC? Secondly, DeWar isn't ever "cruel to be kind". Killing assassins doesn't work for that. Not taking Oelph off the planet does. On the other hand, would DeWar have reversed the sexes in the story? Maybe they did have changes of heart.
