One of Naysmith's colleagues had:
"'...put the snatch on a certain man and pumped him full of truth drug.' Naysmith didn't ask what had happened to the victim; the struggle was utterly ruthless, with all history at stake." (p. 57)
Do we just read past this? Or do we, while reading, just accept the perspective of the viewpoint character? That character might have objected to the disappearance of a kidnap victim in whatever cause. Can we ever be sure that all history is at stake in any current conflict? And, even if we think that we are sure, do we also think that anything goes? I do not expect to become involved in a movement that involves kidnappings or assassinations but who knows what will happen in future? I can imagine this scenario: I am called to court to give evidence against a political comrade and am pressurized to lie under oath because "all history is at stake." Massive pressures cause massive political splits and disillusionments. Most of the time, I am glad to be on the sidelines.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I don't entirely understand, who might have been hypothetically pressuring you to lie under oath about this "political comrade"? The prosecutor or fellow "political comrades"? Either would be guilty of the same crime, the giving of false testimony.
Given our already fairly doddering ages, neither of us is likely to get mixed up in "wet work," as the spies say in Intelligence work!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I can imagine someone I know being on trial and his comrades/friends/acquaintances pressuring me to lie. Hypothetical but possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That was one of the alternatives I had in mind.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment