Flandry offers to join the rebellion if he and Kathryn can be together even just for the rest of the trek to Port Frederiksen. However, Kathryn, remaining monogamous, replies:
"'I understand what you're thinkin' Dominic. If Snelund, why not you? But don't you see the difference? Startin' with the fact that I do like you so much?'" (p. 108)
Flandry should not be thinking, "If Snelund, why not me?" and should say that he is not. Kathryn did not consent to Snelund, which made what he did rape. Flandry does not propose anything but consensual sex between two adults morally and legally capable of consent. His reply is:
"'I see you're loyal to an arbitrary ideal that originated under conditions that don't hold good any more.'" (p. 109)
What arbitrary ideal? Monogamy? That was not exactly arbitrary because it was strongly based in property relationships. I agree that it originated under conditions that are continually changing but Kathryn can still opt to abide by it, which she does. That settles the rest of Flandry's career:
"Very well, if I have no reason to forswear His Majesty Josip III, let me carry on with the plan I'm developing for the discomfiture of his unruly subjects." (ibid.)
1 comment:
Kaor, Paul!
I think Kathryn was wrong to think Flandry had anything like "If Snelund, why not me?" And I agree Flandry also erred, in what he said about that "arbitrary ideal."
And that line about not forswearing Josip III always struck me as being wryly humorous whenever I read it!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment