rthstewart | In which I take a deep breath and hit the post button anyway

Entry tags:

In which I take a deep breath and hit the post button anyway

So, Chapter 8, The Queen Susan in Finchley, is up.

There’s not much research here. The information on the SS Seatrain came from here.

I really meant to get this up sooner, but I’ve been tweaking Susan and Peter’s conversation for days. I’ve been concerned about a lot of things there. I don’t want Peter to seem pompous or judgmental for acts undertaken in Narnia. I really wanted to show a good relationship between the two of them because without that, the “not a Friend of Narnia” is meaningless. The ends and means discussion reappears, now with the added gloss of what it means to be a Knight of Narnia. It was

min023 who pointed out once how Susan was the only one not a Knight and I've thought a lot about that over the months.

Of immense concern to

l_a_r_m , Lowrey’s fate remains undecided. This is a step forward, as I did intend to kill him.

And of course, the chapter continues the meditation on families and children and the war’s effects upon them. The Churchill quote is deliberately ironic given what the War did to English family life. I’ve been working on the theme for several chapters now with good parents (Tom Clark, Lin Kun and Kwong Lee), bad parents (Harold and Alberta), absent parents (Richard Russell, John Pevensie, Leszi, Jack’s mother, Yi), parental figures (Ruby, Peter in many different guises), and unconventional families and single parents (Ruby as surrogate mother to Jack, Tom Clark, Dalia and Mrs. Pevensie as single parents, Maureen in an Asian family, Peter in a Cheetah family, Cyrus and the Satyrs) and so forth.

I’ve not addressed head on the issue of whether Edmund was one of those absent fathers and whether Morgan was one of those single mothers for a lot of reasons. Most troubling to me is that it reeks of fandom cliché and it’s not a part of the story that most TSG readers have focused upon too much. I’ve tried to show something of how I see the succession after the departure and it’s not the harsh, brutal, or violent upheaval most often shown in fic. Hence the reason for the introduction of Aidan and his many small relations.

snacky , Clio, E,

autumnia , and

min023 have been a huge help with this chapter. So, thank you!

There’s more to come about Edmund and Morgan. Like the Valentine's Day story, I will post it here and not on ff.net.

Some chapters come easily. The conversation between Peter and Susan was not one of them.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yea! I was thrilled to see another chapter up, and nothing in it disappointed me. I find myself wishing occasionally that I'd just found your fic for the first time so that I could have the fun of reading it again for the first time.

Thanks so much for writing!

Awww, thank you! I really appreciate you reading and sharing!

Some chapters come easily. The conversation between Peter and Susan was not one of them.

And truly, your work here in this chapter was magnificent (apologies to the High King for my use of the word). As I said in my review, the conversation between Susan and Peter was one of my favorite parts of this chapter. Normally, it would be Susan/Edmund's conversation (which I loved just as much as it was more discussion into Rat and Crow) but there was something about Peter and Su's talk that really caught my attention. I think it's because we normally see so much of the other siblings' conversations with each other (Peter/Edmund, Edmund/Lucy and Peter/Lucy [in Narnian flashbacks]) but we rarely see how the two older siblings interact with each other.

Thanks. I just got a PM from someone commenting on how I have Peter and Susan as affectionate and caring and open, acting in some ways as a father and a mother and yet plainly not. I dealt with this in the Folly chapter back in TQSiT and deliberately introduced the incest issue there in order to squash it. Given how rarely these two occupy the fandom stage together unless it is sexual, I always feel like I have to draw the boundaries. The groundwork for their split was laid early in TQSiT and now revisited and explicated further here. I think readers are still more likely to tilt in Susan's favor and find that Peter is being hypocritical and too harsh. That's what was so hard in this chapter. To try to explain Peter's position and make it sympathetic while not condemning Susan. In the end, readers will have to chose who they align with.

When I was reading the chapter, I got distracted from your recounting of the succession by the character development going on, but now I realize that, yeah, very few stories deal with the Narnia succession after the Pevensies leave and those that do have it be uncertain and tragic. Part of being a good ruler, however, would be having a clear succession. I like that they had a succession and their stay was more than a single brief golden age in a long bleak history. They started something that took a thousand years or more to run down.

And some conversations are just as difficult for the author as for the characters. It came out really well though.

Keep writing.

Thanks so much. The succession issue dominates the other side of the vision -- the Narnia side, from the perspective of the Beasts. I've not forgotten it for all that I've not dealt with it much in TSG. Edmund reflects on it back in Part 1. In AW in the Narnia flashback with Dalia and Peter and the cubs, the reason Dalia has left Peter is because she thinks that without her around he'll be more likely to find a suitable bondmate for the human heirs that the Beasts really, really, really want. The manipulations of the Beasts to achieve this are in The Palace Guard and By Royal Decree. And this is one where I just bang my head because it such fandom cliche to have those wandering parentless heirs, suicidal consorts, and political chaos left behind. Resorting to overused tropes has kept me from doing this. Well, that and the fact that most of the TSG readers aren't really interested in it -- see Harold and Morgan. The reviews for this chapter bear that out -- again -- given both the drop and what readers are focusing on. So, I take as a hint that readers really get tired of my wedging the Narnia past into AW and that I should just drop it.

But, I see enormous canon support for this. Tirian says in TLB that the Narnia history is so boring because there's hardly anything that happens and the Beasts are very clear in Prince Caspian of their preference for human rulers and Mrs. Beaver completely disses Jadis for not having a drop of human blood in her. So... who are they? Where are they? The Pevensies had themselves been through the upheaval of succession with the abdication crisis in 1936. Peter and Susan certainly know of it -- even Lucy and Edmund would have been aware of it as they became older. They HAVE to have made some provision -- yes, I doubt they ever thought all four would be gone at once but -- famine? disease? To say nothing of that nagging feeling -- if not by them than by their better advsiors -- reminding that you came by magic, you could leave by magic, all of you, at once. The Narnians had been through a 100 years of illegitimate rule by Jadis. I cannot see any ambiguity here. Even Aslan might have dropped hints that yes, you need to plan for it.

As to the transition itself, my preference is for Aslan to not be cruel and neglectful so that suggests to me that when the 4 were sent back, he was on hand (paw?) to reassure and offer comfort.

Errr, end ramble. I was very, very reluctant to broach the topic and based on the FB it looks like that concern was legit. So, I HUGELY appreciate those who step up to say that they liked this part of it.

I am finally - FINALLY - getting caught up on reading. Which right now involved a whole lot of re-reading the earlier parts. Which leads me to mention again, in case I didn't already leave a review on it on ff.net, how much I adore the interaction between Eustace and Mary in the museum. And how your Eustace is not, as so many portray him, a mindless drone to whatever Alberta tells him, but that his interests in science are very much his own. And his grimly realistic expectations of what life at Experiment House will be like (and the hint, perhaps just present in my own mind, that his school might have played a large part in his horridness, as much of it might have been necessary for self-preservation) now, and his desire to talk to Digory and Polly about how to be a not-royal Friend ...

Well. I love Eustace. Obviously. And you write him very well indeed.

(I will try to leave more reviews on ff.net, but I'm reduced to typing with only my left hand for a few days, so they may not be very long or detailed. Typing left-handed is slow and painful, for me anyway, though better than trying to write on paper with my left hand.)

I do hope you are feeling better! OUCH to the elbow!!! I have really enjoyed writing Eustace. I did it a bit in Part 2 and then got into his head when I wrote Under Cover. I really like him and I'm looking forward to Jill as well. I don't want to malign Eustace for reading all the wrong books when my own children have so enjoyed those same books. The school certainly plays a role and it is awful (I'm going to deal with the rabbit and the torture that he mentions to Jill in SC!) but alas in this vision I do see Harold and Alberta as very unaffectionate and neglectful parents. But then, I've been exploring parenting for a while in the story and while there are some good parents, I've not put Harold and Alberta there. I do love the idea of Eustace really embracing the "science" with Mary as a mentor and having the rigorous intellectual curiosity that Richard found was lacking in Peter -- that ability to do more than take things on faith.

Saving the chapter for tomorrow- I'm having a little hospital vacation for the next few days and need something to do. Can't wait to read it! :D

FEEL BETTER FIRST!

What an amazing chapter. Parts of it may have been hard to write, but you certainly wouldn't know it from reading. There is much here to love. The interaction between The Meeting of Minds - wonderful. And the complex relationship between Peter and Susan just has so many nuances.

Got to the final scene, and my mouth just dropped open. Don't know whether I'm anywhere near the reality, but all of a sudden I saw how the 'no longer a Friend' could play out. I never would have considered the abandonment of a 'blown code/cover story' as part of the scenario, but I can definitely see how that might play - brilliant plot twist, there.

FF.net review is coming, but now I have to go be Mum, in hopes of getting out the door somewhere vaguely on time : )

ot to the final scene, and my mouth just dropped open. Don't know whether I'm anywhere near the reality, but all of a sudden I saw how the 'no longer a Friend' could play out. I never would have considered the abandonment of a 'blown code/cover story' as part of the scenario, but I can definitely see how that might play - brilliant plot twist, there.

Yep. Between the problem of how to even talk about Narnia when people like Asim might be listening and the Colonel has told her not to do so, the discussion of means and ends, and what it means to be a Knight of Narnia (and thank you for that one), the lipstick, nylons, La, silly children's game and Not a Friend of Narnia are all there.

Hi,

It's been ages since I commented one of your fan-fics, because of what I don't feel good, but as the reasons are hardly to be discussed in public, I'll pass over them. Nonetheless I'd like you to know, that I've been reading all your stories during that time.
I won't make detailed analysis of what has been written when I was silent, I'd like to make just one remark; here, on livejournal, so that others could also express what they think about it.
In my opinion, there is nothing strange in the High King being anti-colonial. Susan or Edmund can be surprised at the begining, belive it to be ironic, but after second thought they should reconsider. Emperor of the Lone Islands has all the rights to be against British colonialism; what is the difference between those two situations is the base of political system which is in force.
Traditional monarchy is (or at least is supposed to be) a contract (formally expressed or not) between two sides - monarch and his subject (each subject individually), generally stating that subject is to obey the monarch and monarch is to take care of subject. A situation in which monarch is a foreigner is very common in the history and has never really caused any problems; it could be problematic when he had more than one country, but only when he was favourising one of them on the other's expense or/and one of his countries was obtained by conquest - cause in both this situations the contract I mentioned was not abided by. Peter (foreigner for all his dominions) was undoubtedly monarch by the Grace of God, so with undeniable rights to any land he was given; I also doubt that he would be unjust towards Lone Islands.
XXth century Great Britain was democratic; democracy was it's tenet, foundation (some particular laws are here irrelevant). And the basis of democracy is the belief that people should be allowed to have full control over their lives and if to be governed - only by people who are their representatives, chosen by themselves. Obviously it did not apply to the people of India - but neither were they part of the monarch-subject system described before (as people from colonies have never been, no metter what the political system was).
The High King Peter has all the rights and even should share anti-colonial sentiments, as they are against unjustified inequality in treating citizens, or - as he is more used to think - subjects.

Best,
Krystyna

PS. To all who don't know me yet - my apologies for any mistakes, but English is not my first language.

I am THRILLED to see you again! Thank you so much for sharing these views on colonialism. The approach I took since the very first chapters of Part 1 is that this is a sort of political awakening for Peter. He has assumed that England and all her people are all the same (they are not) and that nothing can compare to the diversity of Narnia. The positive to England's colonial past (as I finally got Edmund to say in the Liverpool chapter) is that there are things about that exposure that are very good -- the diversity. There are also, as most conventionally presented and as is playing out in England, some very bad things about colonialism -- a very, very relevant issue given that August 1942 is when the British imprison the Congress Party officials in India. Peter dodged the colonial position in Chapter 3 of Part 1 when he refused to take a position on genital mutilation - a HUGE issue in the African colonial movement but did try to articulate how, morally, the sovereign might use its power and authority to eliminate what it perceives as objectionable practices. Lucy then raised the uncomfortable question that maybe things like this were occurring in Narnia but they chose to ignore them and to let communities practice their own culture without interference. The companion stories in the Lone Islands were intended to get to this issue in a way -- how does the sovereign change practices in its colonies in ways that are humane and respectful. They learned (the hard way) how to do it in Narnia and that translates into an anti-colonial sentiment in 1942 England -- at least for Peter and Lucy.

Yes, I can see Peter's road to anti-colonialism - at least partial, as he is aware of positive aspects of dissemination "civilization". What I was trying to point out, is that - despite Susan's reaction - the end of that road is not contradictory to it's beginning.
I said I wouldn't analyze previous chapters, but - as we're talking about serious metters of recent history - maybe one more issue. In Change of Heart 2 Edmund gets interest in post-war court and problems of laws which could be used, authority of a victor's justice etc. It should be also pointed that those controversies pale in comparison with a fact, that among people who were judging crimes againt humanity was Stalin.

By the way; I was wondering...
In the same chapter there was much about "British maneuver" of pretending not to see when someone does something he shouldn't do. Was it intentionally exaggerated to emphasize differences between British and Americans? I mean - could it really not be practiced in USA?
Or am I showing my European bias now?

that among people who were judging crimes againt humanity was Stalin.

I am not sure yet if I can make it fit, but several readers have mentioned Katyn and it is very much in my mind, especially during the drafting of the Nuremberg indictments in 1946 or 47.

Further, according to some sources, the British were very opposed to war crimes tribunals and favored encouraged suicides and military execution while Stalin supposedly was with the Americans in wanting trials. I spoke with one person who told me the reason for this might have been that the "Soviet" style of trial was very much for show and not legitimate, so there may have been a lack of understanding as to what the term "trial" meant. I'm not there yet in the story, but I very much see of what you write.

Also, another reader had mentioned that "Soviet" was actually not a term used except by the British and the Americans, and the "Soviets." This was something I did pay attention to the first time I used the word because I certainly understood "soviet" to be an illusory term intended to co-opt and replace the ethnicity of the peoples that made up the so-called Soviet "Union." If you have any additional thoughts on this, I welcome it.

"British maneuver" of pretending not to see when someone does something he shouldn't do. Was it intentionally exaggerated to emphasize differences between British and Americans? I mean - could it really not be practiced in USA?
Or am I showing my European bias now?

Some of that is American and some of it is Tom Clark, the character, who is a very forthright Yankee and is having problems with the polite, stiff upper lip British. This is his perception of a cultural divide between the Americans and the British -- that the British will not say what they mean and that even if they did speak as plainly as an American like Tom Clark, he might not understand what they said. Especially at this point in history, America and England are two countries separated by a common language.

>I am not sure yet if I can make it fit, but several readers have mentioned Katyn and it is very much in my mind, especially during the drafting of the Nuremberg indictments in 1946 or 47.

In communist times there was a joke:
"An extract from XXIIth century encyclopedia: Hitler Adolf - minor tyrant from Stalin's era."
Katyn is one of many Stalin's crimes. But you are right, it is quite significant, as it was made public as early as 1943. In general, Stalin was more intelligent and he didn't build his "long death camps" in the middle of Europe, so revealing the massacre could have been shocking for many. Obviously, enemy of your enemy is your friend (or at least ally), but there is a question how far such an alliance can go.

I intend to write more, but now I have to go and catch the bus. So I'll do it later.

Krystyna

PS. I've assumed that it is a proper place for making comments on your fics. But if you think that long and boring comments could scare away some innocent people and you prefer to have them on your private e-mail - don't hesitate to say so.

Do not worry about "appropriateness"!! Conversation occurs where it occurs and I welcome it all. I hope you will consider leaving commentary over on ff.net occasionally too.

In any event, I have in my head a plan for how to further pull Susan and Peter apart based upon the "Iron Curtain falling over Europe." I think the two of them could come to very different conclusions regarding what is appropriate for a Queen of Narnia at the end of WW2. Thanks so much! and again, it is lovely to hear from after so long!

I prefer writing here, as there is "reply" option and you can really have a discussion. On ff.net one can just leave a message and disappear. Plus - there are less people writing in capital letters here.
Back to business:

>Further, according to some sources, the British were very opposed to war crimes tribunals and favored encouraged suicides and military execution while Stalin supposedly was with the Americans in wanting trials. I spoke with one person who told me the reason for this might have been that the "Soviet" style of trial was very much for show and not legitimate, so there may have been a lack of understanding as to what the term "trial" meant. I'm not there yet in the story, but I very much see of what you write.

I generally agree, with one "small" correction. It's not that they didn't understand what a trial is. They understood it perfectly well, they just decided that they didn't want to have anything to do with them. That's why I've written that Stalin was judging. Not personally, obviously (though it's a shame, really, at least he would be busy for some time), but it was absolutely certain, that a judge chosen by him would pass sentences exactly as Stalin wanted them. I can see British, American or French jugde making verdict different then his government want it to be. That doesn't work with USSR. But they liked making trials for propaganda reasons, even when they were obviously fake. If a person disappears someone (especially someone from the West) could ask questions. If there is a trial Soviet authorities can just say "You see? Everything was done according to law." And if someone is starting to protest, the answer is just "You're talking about technical details. In general, everything is right." (In fact, that would be later in history. In Stalin's time there wouldn't be even trace of making excuses - in such a way a long list of national heroes has been sentences for treason).
I am aware that we are a bit off topic, but the subject we discuss and the way you speak about it impel me to write here longer quotation, I hope you don't mind:
"This system managed - really managed - to make international opinion belive in one principal lie, which later bear on everything: that countries east from Elbe are countries just like the others. Standart, normal, using exactly the same institutions as others; they have prime ministers, ministers, elections, parliaments, courts, public opinion, trade unions and so on. In this gigantic falsehood important role played words mentioned above. Care was taken so they would be the same as in democratic world, though they were used to describe institutions or terms which were contradictory to their names. It seams that manipulation was successful. Citizen of a democratic country, reading about PRL's parliament, elections, court, automatically must have visualized parliament just like his; elections just like his. Sometimes he could maybe suspect that this parliament is a bit too obedient to the Party, court may be partial, not as independent as his - in England, Sweden or Canada, but it hasn't crossed his mind, that parliament could have absolutely nothing to do with real parliament - except for name. That it enacts exactly what it is ordered, that court rules verdicts exactly as it is told by Party's Central Committee and trade union takes care of interests of an employer. It hasn't crossed his mind, but eventually it could, if the authorities had made a mistake and renamed court as "Centre of Proletarian Justice", parliament as "Revolutionary Counsel of Working Class" and called a prime minister "Leader". No, they hadn't done it, they'd preffered to use sb's elses terms to deceive more successfully. The salon was entered by an apeman who for a long time managed to pretend being human."
J. Fedorowicz, sometime in the eighties - I'm not sure when exactly, because I have it on a copy of a cassette unoffically recorded during illegal meeting.
I don't think any further comments of mine are needed here.

>Also, another reader had mentioned that "Soviet" was actually not a term used except by the British and the Americans, and the "Soviets." This was something I did pay attention to the first time I used the word because I certainly understood "soviet" to be an illusory term intended to co-opt and replace the ethnicity of the peoples that made up the so-called Soviet "Union." If you have any additional thoughts on this, I welcome it.

If one is speaking about a person - who thinks, feels, has some personal life etc. - uses term "Russian", and such a person would call himself in that way as well (of course, he could be of some other nationality - then Ukrainian, Georgian etc., unless he's used to being "Russian" because of living in Russian Empire before 1917). Term "Soviet" is generally used when refering to institutions or people somehow related to the country or it's institutions - so one would speak about Soviet courts, Soviet authorities etc., but also would say "Soviets" when refering to soldiers, members of the Party and so on. I've checked - in the last chapter you use term "Soviets" when refering to spies and people standing behind them - so that's absolutely proper. There is also fraze "Soviet man" - I don't mean here sarcastic term "Homo Sovieticus", but literal translation of "sovietskiy chelovek", which was used to describe right-thinking citizen of communist country (like in: "Wanya informed on his own parents, he's a real Soviet man".) But never in my life have I heard or read word "Soviet" as a noun in singular form.
Most certainly "Soviet" is not term invented by the West - after all, bolsheviks changed the name of the country themselves. Adjective "Soviet" is correctly derived from that name. It's just that there is no such a nationality. When you're refering to the Mexican living in USA you call him Mexican, unless you want to talk about his relations to the country - then you call him American soldier, spy, politician etc.
For many people term "Soviet" has negative connotations, but that's simply because they and their environment don't like Soviet Union. Yes, in such circumstances it can be used almost as an insult. But for other people it would be a praise. Names of other countries or nationalities can be used in such a way as well. Maybe some others just don't cause such strong emotions.

And now I've written absolutely too much, so I'll end up here.

Best,
Krystyna

And once again. I'm annoying, really.
>several readers have mentioned Katyn
Are there other Polish readers around? Because I can't imagine anybody else who could think about that.

Are there other Polish readers around? Because I can't imagine anybody else who could think about that.
I have heard, over the months, from Bulgarian, Hungarian, Russian, and Ukrainian readers. At least 3 people have mentioned Katyn to me, including at least one reader from Eastern Europe and my reader E who is something of a historian of the period. FF.net allows me to track reader nationality, though I do not typically do so -- most readers are from the US, UK, and Australia. In response to a "Meme" which asked me of a hypothetical in which I pretended to have written a story I have not actually written, I discuss what a Katyn story might be here, http://rthstewart.livejournal.com/36207.html?thread=430447#t430447

I've not written this so you have not missed anything -- but it shows one way I might have approached the story from a Narnian perspective. The challenge for me with writing fanfiction of issues such as Katyn is that I do not wish to minimize the role of the real heroes -- to insert my fictional constructs, or Lewis' into the life work of real people and heroes. Katyn presents such a challenge. The fictional characters can be observers, they can bear witness, they can be clerks, bystanders, and commentators. But, they cannot be the ones who actively do the work.

It seems I'm a bit too cynical. I thought all the others have enough of Polish rising that subject.
I can see your problems with involving your characters in issues such as Katyń. And apart from what you mentioned here - Edmund has time only till 1949 and that story's been dragging on till now. And who knows when it will end.
Hellen mentioned also Warsaw Uprising. But - of Polish aspects - what could really make some use for you are Polish soldiers and other political imigrants in Britain during and after the war - as minorities are one of main subjects in your stories.
See also Polish Resettlement Act 1947 and whole the story around that.

Krystyna

I've second thought about it and it really seems to make sense. All that generals, presidents and prime ministers on forced exile could ring a bell with the Four.

Not sure about Polish, but there are Russians :)..., originally from Smolensk (I am sorry about your president), currently in US. It was my comment regarding "Soviets" that Rthstewart mentioned. Thank you very much for giving a more detailed explanation on the subject. I wrote it after I spent an hour watching my children watch a program about Kurskaia Duga battle. There were a bunch of interviews with Russian and German veterans and both refereed to the fourths of USSR simply as Russians, which was promptly translated as Soviets. By the end of the program my ears turned in to tubes. I know that most Europeans do not use the term and I though that English been Europeans might not either.

Along with Katyn, I actually was thinking about the battle of Warsaw, in particular the rebelation and stand of the "Soviet" troops... But this is another story.

Hellen

PS Rth, Great chapter, as usual. Sorry to use your journal as a chart :).

Thank you, Hellen. I had wondered if you were from that part of the world. As mentioned somewhere in here, I lived in Romania in the early 90s as a volunteer. We had to be very careful in describing what "volunteer" meant, as the assumption in Romania at that time was "slave labor." I understood what you meant about the term "Soviet" versus "Russian" though I certainly do not understand the nuances of when it is appropriate and when it is not. I will do the best I can and where I err, do let me know! From what I saw in my source material, the English and Americans did refer to their "ally" as Soviet and its people as "Soviets" thereby enforcing the fiction. However, most of my source material is written by Americans rather than by English writers. I do find it interesting that Europeans continued to use the term "Russian."

thank you for continuing to read!

The whole problem has in fact strong connections with linguistics. English term "Soviet" can be used both as noun and adjective. In Slavic languages these are two different words. There is a Russian adjective meaning "Soviet", which was widely used (as in examples I've showed above), but a noun has never been created (hence: Soviet man, also Soviet nation etc.). As an English language allows for that, you can use term "Soviet" as noun, but only when it corresponds with intentions of person speaking.

>I am sorry about your president
Thank you

As to the Russians/Soviets problem I should add, that using "Russians" where "Soviets" could be also used humanizes them in a way. It's a bit like using Germans instead of Nazis (though now, especially during official occasions, very often Germans from III Reich are called "Nazis" out of courtesy for currently living Germans. Or political correctness). If somebody translates "Russians" to "Soviets" he modificates the utterance against speaker's intentions.

>I actually was thinking about the battle of Warsaw
I've stopped here for a moment: Why battle of Warsaw?!
Term "battle of Warsaw" is used when refering to the battle from 1920. There was also "battle of Warsaw 1656" and "battle of Warsaw 1705". What was in September 1939 was "defence of Warsaw". But you, as I understand, mean Warsaw Uprising.
That is one of aspects of what I mentioned before, i.e. moral problems of having Stalin as your ally. Especially if he is an enemy of your other ally; USSR attacked Poland in 1939 and despite some political declarations or even acts that war wasn't ended until Stalin grabbed half of Poland and in the rest of it established communist government, dependent to him. Warsaw Uprising was very useful for Stalin - thanks to that he had less Polish soldiers and political leaders to arrest and/or execute.
Western allies decided just to let it all be. I'd wish there was some Lucy there to tell them few words.

Best,
Krystyna

I have been very conscious of when I use "Nazi" and when I use "German" in the story. I will add "Soviet" and "Russian" to that list! And yes, there were huge problems to having Stalin as an ally. I had read that Roosevelt's promise to Molotov notwithstanding regarding the second front, Churchill was perfectly content to let the Nazis and Stalin's forces (Soviet army?) battle it out to the weakening of both.

Thanks again and onward!

Yep, that is proper place to use term "Soviet army". Probably the most proper, when you refer to that as owned by Stalin.
In case you haven't noticed in that amount of mails - there are some new also above.

Krystyna

>I've stopped here for a moment: Why battle of Warsaw?!
Sorry, here I was at a loss for a correct term to use. "Liberation" did not sound right, but what I was referring to is the stop of the Soviet advance for the duration of the Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising). The story was well known in the USSR and was viewed as a betrayal of Slavic brotherhood for a gain in a political game.

Rth, not to justify anything of what Stalin and his company done and with deep apologizes to Krystyna and he country people, but just to give a little bit of background on what happened around the time of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact took forth.

In the years 1936-1938 Stalin performed Great Purge, in which he executed over a half a million of army offices only, not to count people of other professions and affiliations. These executions quite often are pointed out as one of the reasons Red army was not able to withstand German attack in 1941 and suffered colossal losses in the first days and weeks. Why Stalin did it is quite an open question, which I do not want to speculate about at the moment.
Another part of the picture is that a part of Poland belonged to Russian Empire before the Revolution of 1917. This was the part that according to Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact went back to USSR and this is the where the invasion of Red army took place in 1937. Probably the reason that this land did belong at some point to Russian Empire allowed Great Britain and France not to declare war on USSR as they did on Germany once both armies moved into the Polish territory (There was an agreement between these countries that once one is attacked, the others would declare war on the aggressor) . Also, I think Stalin did not consider this territory foreign and felt comfortable to use the same measures to its population as to the rest of the USSR. The problem again came from the betrayal of the Slavic brotherhood. Polish refugees and military units were crossing to the Russian side expecting protection from advancing German troops, but instead they were either taken prisoners and put in concentration camps or simply executed.

Sorry for the history review, just wanted to give a perspective. Katyn was not the only execution place, just one of the most known ones. Stalin did execute many others, before and after Katyn, Polish and other nationals, he was quite an internationalist… This is about Stalin and executions, the USSR/Russia's fight with Nazi Germany is another matter all together. Since twelfth century the Russian national attitude is that when under attack, no internal disputes can take place. The following fight and success were not because, but despite Stalin and Communists presence. It was a national upraise and quite a spectacular one, but we can discuss it some other time.

>Sorry, here I was at a loss for a correct term to use.
It's me who should apologize for being pedantic. It's just that because of number of battles which taken place in Warsaw some of them are called battles, some - sieges, some - defences etc. As a result one does not understand, when somebody doesn't use that code.

>In the years 1936-1938 Stalin performed Great Purge
I am aware of that, but I'm not sure why you've mentioned that. I don't suppose it has anything to do with attacking Poland in 1939 - if anything, it should be a reason not to attack. And if it was regarding to the situation in 1944 - military situation was completely different then. Quite recently there was published a book written by Russian historian and based on Moscow's archives which clearly showes, that it wasn't questionable that from a military point of view stopping then for few months was idiotic.

>a part of Poland belonged to Russian Empire before the Revolution of 1917. This was the part that according to Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact went back to USSR
Not only those and not all of them. Before 1917 there was no independent Poland at all (not since partitions 1772-1793-1795). So just as much as e.g. Brest, Warsaw was in Russia. On the other hand Lviv was in Austria-Hungary. The only time when Poland's eastern border was a bit similar to that from Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was for some years till 981 and in 1018-1031.

>Probably the reason that this land did belong at some point to Russian Empire allowed Great Britain and France not to declare war on USSR as they did on Germany
Agreement between Poland and Great Britain had secret protocol in which first point made it clear, that by "one of european powers" they mean Germany. In case of some other "power", Poland could ask for support and Britain could give it or not. As they didn't help even with Germany, it's not surprising that they didn't help with USSR. In Polish-French agreements, if I recolect well, it was even openly said.

>I think Stalin did not consider this territory foreign
Stalin didn't consider anything a foreign territory. He would take anything what was available. As you've said, he was quite an internationalist.

>Katyn was not the only execution place, just one of the most known ones. Stalin did execute many others, before and after Katyn, Polish and other nationals
No disagreement between us here. Look above - I have written the same when Katyń was mentioned for the first time. You see, I've read "The Gulag Archipelago" or Bukovsky's book (I'm not sure what is it's English title) for the first time before I've learned what exactly happened in Katyn (I was about 12 then. I'm not certain when I've learned about Katyń issue, but for sure it was later - I hadn't expected anything good from Stalin by that time).

> It was a national upraise and quite a spectacular one
I know that and I'm happy for Russians that they managed to retain their independence. I'd just wish they would let others remain independent too.

By the way. Do you know what Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf"? (I'm translating from Polish translation, of course):
"The fact of signing peace treaty between Germany and Russia would itself inevitably cause a future war, which result would be certain in advance. Such a war could mean only the end of German Reich."
Quite a prophet, wasn't he?

Krystyna

Just left a review at FF.net, but had a few more comments!
I really appreciated the comments from Susan and Peter regarding historical sources and how jumbled they get! I did a degree in history, and quite vividly remember the frustration from having limited and contradicting accounts from 900 year old sources. I can see this problem being extreme in Narnia, where so many of its people couldn't write, after being conquered by Telmarines. It makes my head spin thinking about it, haha.
I also wanted to mention how much I love when the Narnia-world affects and is relevant to our world. I think it has to be in the story, because it is so vital to making the Pevensies who they are.
On a final, more personal, note, thanks for making me feel welcome! I am extremely fandom/comment shy - this is probably the most I have ever reviewed anything, haha.

Keep up the good work, and I eagerly await more Harold and Morgan!

- JamieApple

Look for Harold and Morgan on Friday or Saturday, I think.

I'm glad the historical issue rang true for you. I am not a historian and just fake my way through these things. But we don't have that many 1,000 year old documents floating around today that would be doubly true in Narnia, wouldn't it? The Dryad oral account was there for several reasons -- whenever I have Peter and Susan alone in a scene, I feel that I need to remind the reader that there isn't an incestual subtext because they are together so seldom in fic. And, as mentioned, I need to build the relationship in order to trash it by TLB because if they don't get along and were never close why would "Not a Friend of Narnia" hurt?

And you are absolutely very welcome. Thank you

Your work paid off because I thought the Peter/Susan convo had real depth and balance. I loved the hints that Susan is more aware of how many problems could be caused by the tangle of Narnia/England. And sees her role moving forward very differently than the other three, even Edmund. Also I see in another comment you think most people would lean toward Susan's side of the ethics debate. I actually think that's the best part. Peter's comments are right on, and really challenging. I'm not sure who's "right" if anyone, and that means you did your job well.

I actually think that's the best part. Peter's comments are right on, and really challenging. I'm not sure who's "right" if anyone
This comment made my week. Really. I've tried so hard to finesse this, to make it HARD. I think reasonable minds could really come to different conclusions here, especially once the War ends and it's a conflict that is going to hurt. Thanks so very, very much.

Hallo

You know, I may be being a bit obtuse, but Susan, Peter and Edmund all knew that Major al-Masri had broken the Narnian code. If not he, himself, then some of the hordes climbing on and off trains at Beltchley.

So, the Pevensies already know they've been copped, to use the phrase. They knew that from the moment al-Masri appeared in the pub, with a warning not to use the code any longer and orders to handle Edmund discreetly and gently. What's so terrible if Major al-Masri uses it to them?

I suspect I am being thick, here. I appreciate Rat and Crow, but I think I'd be pretty awful at it.

Linnea

Thanks Linnea for coming back! No, you are not obtuse. A couple of other folks raised the same issue of why it is bad and surprising thing that Asim is using the Rat and Crow. Susan walks through her concern near the beginning of the chapter after Edmund falls asleep in which she reflects the problem of Narnia standing for too many things. You need to think about it not from the perspective of the Colonel breaking the Code -- as you say, they know that -- but what it means that Susan (and the rest of them) continue to have conversations about "real" Narnia when Narnia now also is tied up with matters of British security and the Colonel's continuing use of it underscores the point. I've not forgotten, he's saying. If you value your future career, Susan, don't discuss "Narnia" unless it's official business.

Only Asim has come to the conclusion that Narnia is both a code and something "real" -- whatever that might be, and at this point, he is the only one open minded enough to think that it's not crazy. No one else knows that he's started to put some of it together. The Colonel knows nothing of "real" Narnia and Susan certainly isn't going to tell him. The Colonel continues to assume Narnia is a very clever allegorical code, treats it as such, and asks Asim to deliver the coded message to Susan. The problem is that while Asim might get the idea that there is a "coded" Narnia and "real" Narnia, the Colonel doesn't know of the "real." He's told Susan in no uncertain terms, no more talking about Narnia. Susan may talk to others of Narnia but she's breaking her promise to the Colonel and jeopardizing her career if she's caught. To the outsider listening, is she speaking of "real" Narnia in which case she's crazy, or is she violating the Official Secrets Act by speaking of matters of espionage in code. Either way, she's in trouble and it's a lot more difficult to walk the line. She can't just say to the Colonel, Oh, I'm talking about the Other Narnia because either 1) it's imaginary and so she's crazy or 2) it's the children's story, which he knows isn't true and which he isn't going to accept. Narnia Has To Stop and the more she speaks of it, the greater the risk she runs of losing his trust and jeopardizing her advancement in the intelligence operation.

It's also probably pretty concerning for them all to hear just how thoroughly the Colonel has broken the Code. His conversation with Susan is pretty brief on the subject and Asim does not discuss it with Edmund at all.

Better?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In which I take a deep breath and hit the post button anyway

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

Re: anti-colonial king

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Using the Narnian Code

Re: Using the Narnian Code