Print Story How do you hurt a man who's lost everything?
Diary
By TheophileEscargot (Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 04:12:18 AM EST) Reading, Web (all tags)
Reading: "London's Docks", "Fatal Revenant". Ethics. Web.


What I'm Reading
Finished London's Docks by John Pudney. Short, illustrated 1970s book about the history of London's docks. Interesting stuff, touching on a lot of big issues. Starts off with the chaotic and corrupt associations of rivermen and docks before the 18th century, with massive levels of theft. Moves on to the creation of limited monopoly docks, which eventually became competitive. Also goes into some detail on the union struggles of the docks. Talks a bit about the damage and deaths suffered in WW2. Ends up with the docks in decline due to containerisation and the inability of large ships to navigate the Thames.

Seems to encapsulate the history of capitalism in some ways. I found it interesting if a little melancholia-inducing. Suspect most people wouldn't be interested at all.

What I'm Reading 2
Finished the second "Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant" book: Fatal Revenant by Stephen R. Donaldson. Excellent read. The first book, which I re-read before this, was very low-key by Donaldson's standards. I think John Clute has summed up Donaldson's unique genius pretty well: "The essence of Donaldson's artistry--and the key to his success--is his ability to construct narrative crescendos that build and build and keep on building, unremittingly, until they have reached a pitch which no composer of texts has ever attained before." By that standard, "The Runes of the Earth" was just a gentle reintroduction to the world of the Land.

"Fatal Revenant" though starts of with a classic Donaldson scenario of someone forced into an agonizing circumstance. as Linden Avery is forced to travel with an embittered Covenant whose love for her seems to have died in his eternity as part of the Arch of Time. The perennial theme of the paradox of power returns, as even with the power she's been granted, she cannot exert it without inflicting collateral damage.

With his characters sufficiently burnt out, in the second half of the book sets up a complex interplay of forces, as a variety of powers seek their own ends for their own purposes. There's a magnificently complicated battle between Staff of Law-wielding Linden Avery, four Haruchai, Ramen and Ranyhyn, a wedge of ur-Viles, sandgorgons, Raver-driven Kresh, Cavewrights, Roger Covenant, the Elohim Esmer and the mysterious Harrow, With the laws of Life and Death broken, the whole of the chronicles seems up for grabs.

The only annoyance is that as expected, the book ends on an intriguing cliffhanger. Apparently the third book "Against All Things Ending" is expected in 2010 and the final book "The Last Dark" in 2013. Hellfire and damnation: not sure if I can wait that long.

Vocabulary
Words I looked up while reading: "Fatal Revenant":

  • adumbrated
  • brume
  • caliginous
  • cataphract
  • contumely
  • crepitation
  • crepuscular
  • cymar
  • dilitescent
  • donjons
  • fane (n.)
  • febrifuge
  • flamberge
  • hebetude
  • irrefragable
  • jerrid
  • mephitic
  • moiré
  • oneiric
  • paraesthesia
  • paresis
  • ramify
  • salvific
  • sedulously
  • sequacious
  • stillatory
  • surquedry
  • telic
  • thetic
  • threnody
  • tourmaline
  • vambrace
Some of them I didn't know, some I had to clarify. "Ramify their defenses" didn't make much sense initially, but it turned out I didn't really know what it meant after all. Someone did a "Wounded Land" list here.

From an interview Donaldson says:

I compile word lists when I read; then I look those words up and try to become familiar with them. Recently Tennyson's "Idylls of the King" has been a rich source.

Ethics stuff
I find the ethics of this case quite interesting. According to the prosecution "his actions did not contribute to her death". Since she was unconscious, she could not have experienced any feelings of humiliation. So while it's shocking, no actual harm was inflicted. So, why has he been sentenced to three years in prison?

The charge of "outraging public decency" seems to be a rather ill-defined common-law offence, used as an umbrella for cruelty to animals, indecent exposure, kerb-crawling and up-skirt photography. Wouldn't be surprised to see the sentence reduced on appeal.

Web
Fat triathlete abandons blog.

YouTube: Barbershop version of the Ewok Song.

Chinese repeating crossbow.

VoxEU: Why the agricultural tail wags the Doha dog.

Axis of Evil cookbook.

< Adventures in Macroland | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
How do you hurt a man who's lost everything? | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden)
Doesn't it come down to intent? by Scrymarch (4.00 / 2) #1 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:50:01 AM EST
Even though his actions had little consequence, since she died, his intent was immoral. If he had tried to murder someone on a public street but had no consequence, wouldn't that usually result in a sentence?

The Political Science Department of the University of Woolloomooloo

Ok, just reread your poll by Scrymarch (4.00 / 1) #2 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 05:52:29 AM EST
... and you mention intent there. I guess there might also be a question about what is moral vs what the law should enforce.

The Political Science Department of the University of Woolloomooloo

[ Parent ]
There shouldn't have to be a specific law... by motty (4.00 / 5) #3 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:46:41 AM EST
... or offence of 'Urinating On A Dying Person', nor does it make the slightest difference to me whether or not that act actually can be said to have contributed to the subsequent death of that person. I don't care if they end up jailing the bastard for fraud, according to the letter of the law; it's morally obvious to me that such people should be put away and have it made clear to them what they are really being put away for.

An appeal might not work in this case, as a strong argument might be made that the whole point of ill-defined laws such as 'outraging pubic decency' is precisely for cases like this, to provide a legal remedy for an offence so horrible and unusual that it has simply never occurred to anyone before that such a thing might require specific legislation. People who piss on dying people for a laugh should go to jail, and while I'm not normally minded this way, I think three years is not long enough.

I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T

Doha by Alan Crowe (4.00 / 1) #4 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 07:13:35 AM EST
Only skimmed the article, but it looks like it is just filling in details on the standard "concentrated interests beat diffuse interests" problem with democracy.

It's hard to believe by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 1) #5 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:57:43 AM EST

that's the same Anthony Anderson that was in the epic Film Noir masterpiece, "Big Momma's House". I guess being a soldier must have really changed him. Why else would they have felt the need to mention that term in describing him in the headline, then fail to reference it again?


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
Dunno how it works in the States by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #18 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:47:01 AM EST
But it's pretty much universal here in crime reporting to mention what the defendent does (or doesn't) do for a living after the first mention of their name.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Punishment was too lenient by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #6 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:57:31 AM EST
Through willful inaction he allowed another member of his immediate community to die.  All he had to do was pick up a phone.  That's  the first thing on my mind.  The second is that he assaulted her while she lay prone.  That would be assault by direct action. 

Ten to fifteen years in prison would do it.  Though I would certainly accept beating  him with a bamboo cane until he fell unconscious and three years in prison.  The current sentence is too lenient. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."

Well by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #7 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:16:41 AM EST
It seems to me that if he committed an assault, he ought to be tried and punished for assault, not indecency.

And even the prosecution said "his actions did not contribute to her death", so I don't think picking up the phone would have saved her life.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Knowledge by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #9 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:24:52 AM EST
Did he know that he couldn't possibly save her by calling someone?  That line of argumentation implies that if I fire a gun at you and miss, I'm guilty of no crime as I've done you no harm whatsoever.


It seems to me that if there's a possibility of saving a life by alerting authorities, you ought to be legally required to do so.


I am not sure I like the particular crime.  It seems like simple assault to me.  I know in the US, people have been charged with assault simply for spitting on someone.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Well by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #10 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:22:24 PM EST
If you sent everyone in Britain who's walked past an apparent passed-out drunk to prison, I don't think there'd be enough people left outside to guard it...
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
His actions didn't contribute to her death by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #23 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:34:17 AM EST
but they sure as hell didn't contribute to her life - or her passing.


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.
[ Parent ]
Wrong Crime by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #27 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 04:36:55 PM EST
I agree, he was tried for the wrong crime.   I believe that they tried him for the  crime they knew they could convict on easily and then move him along to prison with no chance of appeal.  A jury or magistrate might find cause to not convict under another  charge.




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
Although these days by Vulch (4.00 / 2) #17 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:44:36 AM EST

All he had to do was pick up a phone

And, given his reported words, use it to call 999 rather than film the incident.

[ Parent ]
"No actual harm was inflicted" by Dr Thrustgood (4.00 / 2) #8 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:32:16 AM EST
I agree, it's certainly an interesting one.

While I personally agree with the guy's sentence, I'm kinda surprised that in this day of incitement charges, there isn't an offence for some of the crowd around him.



Fuck Thomas Covenant by Gedvondur (4.00 / 4) #11 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:41:42 PM EST
Thomas Covenant was a fucking asshole.  The books are all deeply depressing.  Donaldson's writing style can be summed up like this:

1.  Describe the wonderfulness, love and beauty of an area and the people in it.  Show the intricate delicacy of the Creator's Land. 

2. Then, due to Thomas Covenant's cowardly attitudes and stupidity, destroy all of it with a cruelty akin to burning the wings off of fairies before raping them to death with a sharpened pencil.

3.  Sell more books.

Gedvondur
"It is virtually impossible to effectively aim a jellyfish, a creature created by God almost solely for the purpose of not flying."- CRwM

Exactly by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 3) #13 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:59:38 PM EST
The best fantasy reflects the real world.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure I saw that on USENET. by Horatio Hellpop (4.00 / 1) #15 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:29:40 PM EST
It might have been a mechanical pencil.

"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here

[ Parent ]
yes by webwench (4.00 / 2) #21 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 07:16:06 AM EST
Dude needs some major therapy. Also, I picture Covenant as exactly the kind of guy who would piss on a dying woman... unless she was on fire, in which case he would refrain.


Getting more attention than you since 1998.

[ Parent ]
3 years for being a bloke drunk on sherry is right by Horatio Hellpop (4.00 / 2) #12 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:46:10 PM EST
That's an old lady's drink, mate.

"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here

Also an alcoholic's drink by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #14 Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:02:17 PM EST
At least under Soviet UKia's tax system, it's one of the cheapest way to get drunk.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
My A level chemistry teacher by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #19 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:48:41 AM EST
Claimed it is the optimal percentage of alcohol that the body can process - so less goes "straight through"; it all goes into the bloodstream.

Pretty cheap too, although the purple tins of kidney damage are competing nowadays.


[ Parent ]
I agree with what most people here say by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #16 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 02:42:06 AM EST
It's not normally a phrase you'll hear from me, but three years isn't long enough.

It's also worth noting that having a loved one treated in such a way will inflict serious distress on the woman's family - that's where the humiliation has taken effect.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

I'm surprised that a person of your percipience by Imperial Mince (4.00 / 1) #20 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 05:59:59 AM EST
had to look up so many words, at least you had the puissance to get the internets/dictionary to explain them.

I said: "I'm surprised that a person of your percipience had to look up so many words, at least you had the puissance to get the internets/dictionary to explain them."

Once again: "I'm surprised that a person of your percipience had to look up so many words, at least you had the puissance to get the internets/dictionary to explain them."

Because I'm fairly certain that percipience and puissance were repeated more times than covenant, mhoram, foul, ramen, ranyhyn, haruchai, the land, and "the" in that book.

It is a great book though.
--
This space reserved for whining like a little bitch and being sanctimonious.

Ramen. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #24 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:35:43 AM EST
I forgot about the noodle riders.

I *did* know some of the words in that list, but not more than 25%.


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.

[ Parent ]
I do what hulver does by Imperial Mince (4.00 / 1) #26 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:47:44 AM EST
and just infer their meaning. I just got sick of reading percipience, the new name for health-sense, and puissance.by the end.

I don't think there's any of those words in that list I can define today, and I only read the book a few days ago, except flamberge, which I already knew was a pointy stick
--
This space reserved for whining like a little bitch and being sanctimonious.

[ Parent ]
Indeed. by Dr Valentine (2.00 / 0) #28 Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:53:38 PM EST
Flamberge is the only one I knew off-hand.

[ Parent ]
You're a bad person. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 2) #22 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 08:32:38 AM EST
I've been trying very hard to resist revisiting The Land because sequels are never as good as the original and, goddamnit, Covenant's dead. Dead and remade as the foundation of a frickin' universe for crying out loud. I really don't want to spend 4 books waiting to find out he's really a raver wearing a wedding ring.

And now, here you go, telling me that they're good books. Feh. You know I read the first trilogy through, then picked up the first one and read them all again? The second trilogy was a shadow of the first; how can a third series be anything more than a shadow of the second?


--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.

Fatal Revenant by hulver (4.00 / 1) #25 Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:57:47 AM EST
Just finished it today.

It's good.

I'm not one to fuss about words I don't understand. I can quite easily skip them. Usually the meaning is inherent in the context they're placed. If not, they're usually fluff and can be skipped without affecting the story at all.

I'm sure I might be missing something by not knowing exactly some of those words means, but I think I can live.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

How do you hurt a man who's lost everything? | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden)