[ilds] Rule of contract

[James Gifford]

Welcome to the discussion, Sam!

On 2016-05-19 1:56 PM, Sam Kirshaw wrote:
> Is this a trust or an enslavement?

Either everything or nothing...  Charlock and Benedicta seem to have 
sorted that out for themselves at the end, which seems to give a bit of 
hope.  With the records / memory / determinism destroyed, who knows -- 
alas, he doesn't tell us.

> It is only disengagement that allows the anti-hero
> to triumph and Durrell’s work is littered with them
> both failing in general terms and succeeding but
> occasionally.

The hero would a rules-man indeed.  This is a fascinating take.  But 
"disengagement" seems to call for a Buddhist or Taoist 
conceptualization, perhaps?  As you say, "The hero would have to play by 
the rules" and pace Che those rules are laid down by Firm or at least by 
the system in which it has a deep interest.  Is Charlock's closing "very 
much master of myself" (Nunquam 7.1.2, p. 283) then a radical break with 
systems of rule or at least artificial rulers?  Hmm...

> Take Benedicta as an example in her time. Her
> devil’s teat and the attempted excision of same are
> a telling element of this tendency.

You know, I can't think of a decent academic study of Benedicta...  She 
gets short shrift in much of this, but really, she's alive and active at 
the end -- she's the one who recovers, unlike Iolanthe.  She might even 
be mistress of herself too.

Best,
James