The Shadow Almost Seen

[sauvin]

When approved, the same tale (more or less) Elysse told of her beginnings as... erm... "that which she is become", but from a very different pair of eyes.

I have in the past in this forum called Eli a stone cold serial murderess; by definition, if not explicitly, I've conferred upon Abby this same distinction. Most of us (myself included) are so busy d'awwing over the little cuties and their powerfully moving love stories that we don't have much time or energy to devote to the total cost this story exacts from the communities in which they occur. Elysse, my confabulation of the two better known vampire tweens, has generally enjoyed similarly sympathetic treatment.

In yet another work in progress, Elysse's relationship continues to suffer from her not even remembering they have one. When she continues to expand on the nature and motivations surrounding the historical events of interest, their relationship suffers more serious damage as Orson suddenly realises that Elysse's memory loss has peeled away much of what she'd learned to be in the time since, and laid bare a lot more of the essence of Elysse herself - and it's just not pretty.

While working on that, and reaching an impasse, I got to thinking in broad terms of people not properly realising the nature of extent of the danger that has just moved into town. In LTROI (the movie), we know that people are very well aware that a few more murders than usual were happening, but the movie only brings in just enough of the general fear the community is experiencing to give the developing story between the two kids a nice, dark backdrop. The few people who spend more than a single focused moment on the murders attribute the phenomenon to a very human serial killer, and not without some justification, at least at first.

Something similar is being done here, except that the danger that has just moved into town isn't just moving "in", it's moving back in, and it's not going to be content with just noshing a bit here or nibbling a bit there. None of the characters in this story ever have the slightest clue what's happening to them, or why, and they never suspect the true nature of the being who architected the demise of at least one whole army and ghosted an entire miniature country. They come up with (and rule out) a number of possibilities, but that's about as far as they can get.

What I find oddly symmetrical in this story is the main character's implicit inability to understand the nature of the monstrosity he himself (along with a host of fellow soldiers) perpetrated on an innocent folk who deserved nothing of what followed. The nature of the culture with which he'd grown up and grown into, along with the nature of his profession, just won't let him see it.

[metoo]

This is unfolding in an interesting way. It reminds me of The Twilight Companions (Les Compagnons du crépuscule) by Bourgeon, has the same kind of ominous atmosphere.

[Clubmeister]

It's incredibly captivating story!
No one dares to touch the Elysse's treasures.
This reminiscent of the old stories about pirates, I like it.
If I not mistaken, this is first part of the story and I should read "A Shadow Rises" next?

[sauvin]

It's incredibly captivating story!
No one dares to touch the Elysse's treasures.
This reminiscent of the old stories about pirates, I like it.
If I not mistaken, this is first part of the story and I should read "A Shadow Rises" next?

It's actually a parallel version; same story, told from a very different point of view. Shadow Rises is told from Elysse's perspective.

[EEA]

I enjoy this story. It reminded me about The Lord of the Ring trilogy. It felt like one of those old stories that were told before when people would go from town to town and tell their stories and everyone in the town gather around to see hear it. Plus it gave me an idea for a ff story about this story.

[lombano]

Good ominous atmosphere.

What I find oddly symmetrical in this story is the main character's implicit inability to understand the nature of the monstrosity he himself (along with a host of fellow soldiers) perpetrated on an innocent folk who deserved nothing of what followed. The nature of the culture with which he'd grown up and grown into, along with the nature of his profession, just won't let him see it.

I don't know. I'm reminded of a dialogue from The Fifth Child which, although in a completely different context, seems pertinent, and goes something more or less like this:

[accusingly] "You didn't see..."
"I was careful not to see!" [as in "I didn't want to know"]

In any case, if memory serves Elysse herself seems far more aware of what she is.

[sauvin]

Good ominous atmosphere.

What I find oddly symmetrical in this story is the main character's implicit inability to understand the nature of the monstrosity he himself (along with a host of fellow soldiers) perpetrated on an innocent folk who deserved nothing of what followed. The nature of the culture with which he'd grown up and grown into, along with the nature of his profession, just won't let him see it.

I don't know. I'm reminded of a dialogue from The Fifth Child which, although in a completely different context, seems pertinent, and goes something more or less like this:

[accusingly] "You didn't see..."
"I was careful not to see!" [as in "I didn't want to know"]

In any case, if memory serves Elysse herself seems far more aware of what she is.

I'll admit readily enough that my knowledge of wartime conditions, or what happens when a military force subjugates a civilian populace in this manner, is necessarily second- or third-hand. In many ways, I'm still that confused little boy of (say) seven or eight who couldn't understand why all those men in the green clothes were so keen on making all those guys in the black and grey clothes dead.

It does seem to me that the value of life was different from what it is now, at least from the perspective of somebody who's lived in corn fields in the American heartland most of his life. Can't place the time frame in which this story takes place with any certainty because I'm no student of history, but what little casual reading I've done seems to have Europeans of every cultural background hithering and thithering beyond yon hills to secure or repossess this bit of land or other; every time a duke got mad at an earl or a couple of kings decided to have a spat, hundreds or thousands of people perished, and nobody much cared.

Nevertheless, claims I've made in earlier posts in this forum seemingly to the contrary, soldiers get "used" to the sights they see, the smells they smell. They get "used" to killing people, often in large numbers, because it's their job. Most never learn to love this job, I think, and most are more than happy to throw down their weapons and go home when it's quitting time.

The unnamed soldier had apparently been in his late teens or early twenties when he went to the shire, and probably not in any kind of senior capacity. Still, he claims, he'd fought Danes and Turks, so he'd been around long enough not to lose his wits (or his bowels) in a regular field of battle. It also means he's probably gotten "used" to a lot of things that folks of those times seemed to take more in stride than we do nowadays.

Elysse, on the other hand, stayed at Dukesbane on her first return "thereunto" (these kinds of prepositions can come in handy at times!) a few weeks, maybe a few months, but apparently stayed at the Duke's stronghold the second time for nearly a decade. On her second return to Dukesbane, who knows how long she might have stayed? I wonder how long it would have taken for folk who'd heard about this place to not be put off by its reputation as burgeoning population pressures forced expansion into the more remote areas - this, remember, in times when old wives' tales tended to trump science and "reason"?

Elysse's memory (in the present state of the story line) apparently drops off about the same time she left, but she'd been there more than long enough to reflect on how the whole story went down, time and time and time again. Maybe if she hadn't killed off all her own folk, she'd have not thought about it much, same as many soldiers seem to put war behind them when they come home. Unfortunately, her home really was a graveyard that nobody in his right mind who'd been keeping up with current events ever came to visit, pay respects, leave flowers or anything. She might have spent decades just listening to the wind rustle in the leaves, alone with the ghosts that sprang from her memory.

The Duke, on the third hand, bears a heavy responsibility for the whole affair even if you only look at the surface. He's the one who ordered the occupation and subjugation, very likely knowing very damn well what this would mean for the indigenous population. If he hadn't cared, even after the shipments from the shire stopped, he seemed to have started caring when his stronghold community started turning to dust. Since Elysse, in the other story, reports having had at least two conversations with the Duke during her second stay at the stronghold, it's reasonable to assume she told him every little gory detail she knew about. It may even have become a kind of catechism for the Duke to endure.

And again, as so often I seem to have claimed in the past, I might be the idiot who wrote the story, but I have no idea what all this business of the Duke's taking "rocks and crafts and things down into the vaults and spending so much time alone with them" was about. It was just a cheap dodge, since I didn't want to get into the (largely irrelevant) nuts and bolts of Elysse's transmogrification from sweet, simple little country girl to "that which she is become", but it does open an obviously large door of implication: the Duke knew or suspected something about the shire, its people and/or the things he might find there, and that knowledge is somehow linked with Elysse's change of life. It's obvious the Duke knew something, but apparently not enough, if he was dumb enough to just wrap her up in a blanket, in broad daylight, and go dump her in some remote cave. Maybe this knowledge, too, bore heavily down on his ducal shoulders, that he'd unleashed on the world a horror against which it has no defense.

The real intent behind the story wasn't to be "ominous", but that word does seem to be making the rounds. It was just to present the same set of events (more or less) from a different point of view. Elysse saw first-hand what happened to her people when an invading military force moved in; obviously, until she'd returned, the unnamed soldier had a very different story to tell.

Well, had a different story to tell when he was sober enough to say much of anything. Mostly, he just partied a lot.

[lombano]

I too have no direct experience of war, and have not witnessed anything that could plausibly be called combat even in a civilian capacity. My comments on your story, however, are much influenced less by the wars the American military has fought in recent decades than by events in my country, namely the drug wars. As a teenager, I traveled on holiday to parts of Mexico that I would not go to today and that are very close to places that today are subject to brutality comparable to what is told in your story, right down to the beheadings and the sexual slavery of children. There are, yes, all sorts of differences, including that in the Middle Ages the entire world was run like that rather than just particular corners of it.
There is no question habituation happens. On a very modest scale, an example might be seeing heavily armed soldiers wearing ski masks hanging about outside a cafe. You hesitate, wondering about the likelihood of a shootout, and then go in and order breakfast. You notice other people having the same reaction - glancing at the soldiers, hesitating, and ending up going in anyway. I've done it. No doubt it can happen on a much greater scale, and not just in war - a surgeon had better not recoil at the sight of blood. There is, however, I think, a very fundamental difference between reacting calmly, becoming de-sensitized even to killing, and what I would term "depraved indifference," let alone actual sadism - if anything, I think habituation also means that you cannot blame panic for your actions. Calmly, indifferently killing an enemy soldier who would've otherwise killed you I would say falls under simple habituation, and could indeed be justified as "I did what I had to do." Deliberately slaughtering, for little actual reason (and certainly for no specific actions), non-combatants who pose no plausible threat and who belong to an enemy who has been utterly defeated falls under depraved indifference. Simple habituation is something like chopping someone's leg off to save his life without batting an eyelid.
On a related note, If I understand correctly, legally, in a modern war, you can kill those engaged in combat against you, you can kill enemy soldiers trying to flee, but it is a crime to kill soldiers who surrender (unless they're sentenced to death for a specific crime, but they cannot be legally killed just for being enemy soldiers if they surrender). It is, of course, a crime to deliberately kill children who are not combatants.

The Duke, on the third hand, bears a heavy responsibility for the whole affair even if you only look at the surface. He's the one who ordered the occupation and subjugation, very likely knowing very damn well what this would mean for the indigenous population.

Yes, of course.

[sauvin]

There are, yes, all sorts of differences, including that in the Middle Ages the entire world was run like that rather than just particular corners of it.

I'd hate to think it was the "entire world", but I'm also a bit hesitant to point out that today's Human Rights folks have their work cut out for them on at least four different continents.

There is no question habituation happens. [...] There is, however, I think, a very fundamental difference between reacting calmly, becoming de-sensitized even to killing, and what I would term "depraved indifference," let alone actual sadism - if anything, I think habituation also means that you cannot blame panic for your actions. Calmly, indifferently killing an enemy soldier who would've otherwise killed you I would say falls under simple habituation, and could indeed be justified as "I did what I had to do." Deliberately slaughtering, for little actual reason (and certainly for no specific actions), non-combatants who pose no plausible threat and who belong to an enemy who has been utterly defeated falls under depraved indifference. Simple habituation is something like chopping someone's leg off to save his life without batting an eyelid.

in my mind, in modern Corn Patch terms, there's not a lot of difference between "depraved indifference" and forthright sadism, and habituation doesn't preclude the possibility of mindless panic.

As with most things, I suspect, these things lie along the multiple and shifting axes of spectra or continua of cultural norms. The salient question, in the context of this "ominous" fanfic, is in how much the "prevailing contemporary norms" of the story's setting would clash with their current hierarchically equivalent counterparts (i.e., how would peasants from yesteryear compare their plight with today's poor country folk, and how would yesteryear's bluebloods compare notes with today's upper crust).

To be clear, my fanfic didn't (purposely) ask any questions. It just presented my (probably ill-informed) impression of those times, with the sole exception of the reference to cannibalism. This *may* have been rare, even in desperate times, and for exactly the reason I gave: the incoming soldiers found a land packed to the rafters in food. Including needless cannibalism was just to add repugnance to the invasion overall, and I didn't think it terribly out of place in view of the fact that Elysse would go on to become "that which I am become" - whatever that is, when she gets hungry, people die.

I say only that it *may* have been rare because I'd done some reading around on the subject a few years ago, expecting to find only isolated cases of it in some parts of Africa, maybe along the Polynesian islands, that kind of thing, but what I found were hints and suggestions that child abandonment or worse may not have been uncommon in Europe in times of food shortage. It's hard to make a persuasive argument one way or the other because civil records of the times in question were so spotty.

On a related note, If I understand correctly, legally, in a modern war, you can kill those engaged in combat against you, you can kill enemy soldiers trying to flee, but it is a crime to kill soldiers who surrender (unless they're sentenced to death for a specific crime, but they cannot be legally killed just for being enemy soldiers if they surrender). It is, of course, a crime to deliberately kill children who are not combatants.

Such are the rules as I understand them, but (1) do all soldiers of all nations of modern times observe this rule, and (2) has this always been true?

[lombano]

...what I found were hints and suggestions that child abandonment or worse may not have been uncommon in Europe in times of food shortage.

I'm guessing the original audience did not think it too strange that in some European fairytales that children were sent off into the forest (clearly, not exactly for a picnic) when the parents couldn't afford to keep them (Hansel and Gretel, iirc). But, in any case, there is a very important difference between killing others to eat them when there is no need, and cannibalism arising out of dire necessity.

in my mind, in modern Corn Patch terms, there's not a lot of difference between "depraved indifference" and forthright sadism

Maybe there really isn't much difference. But I would argue that there is a lot of difference between them and simple habituation.

habituation doesn't preclude the possibility of mindless panic.

No, but it makes it less likely.

As with most things, I suspect, these things lie along the multiple and shifting axes of spectra or continua of cultural norms. The salient question, in the context of this "ominous" fanfic, is in how much the "prevailing contemporary norms" of the story's setting would clash with their current hierarchically equivalent counterparts (i.e., how would peasants from yesteryear compare their plight with today's poor country folk, and how would yesteryear's bluebloods compare notes with today's upper crust).

The lives of modern rural folk in Western countries probably have little to do with those of medieval peasants. The lives of rural folk somewhere like Somalia might not actually be that different. The kind of arbitrary, despotic power that was surely the norm in medieval times is found today only in some dictatorships, and among folks like warlords and cartel leaders. So cultural norms are probably very different. But, at least in some cases, not seeing something is wrong due to cultural norms goes under "I was careful not to see."