The Tisroc greeted his northern guests with remote courtesy, affecting not to see - as he had 'not seen' these twenty-eight years! - their covert snipings and sneers at him, as at a man and sovereign humiliated, unable even to go to war. So be it: let them weigh him and judge him trivial, a thing of no account. But he in his turn could judge, and he saw that Narnia's brief flowering was even now withering, without those Four; it would not be long before she was light as dust, next to the gathering strength of her neighbours, and then - oh, then he would be a thing of no account indeed, a carefully neutral bystander and trader, as the weight of other armies fell on Narnia.
Ha. Yes, that sounds like Rabadash. He may not be able to act directly, but inaction is an action of its own, in the right time and place, and I am not surprised he is still seeking vengeance after all these years, nor that he sees quite clearly that Narnia's position is untenable without the Pevensies to hold the land together.
I have always thought Aslan made a stupid mistake turning Rabadash into a donkey. The curse to remain in Tashbaan, sure; that makes sense. Some subsidiary punishment -- perhaps a curse of silence? -- to be raised at the Autumn Festival, yeah, okay, I can see that. Rabadash needed a reality check, and obviously military defeat alone wasn't cutting it. But the sheer, petty, vicious humiliation of the curse Aslan chose -- not to mention the way he imposed it, which was designed to provoke laughter among the northerners -- does not speak well of his compassion, not to mention his political judgment.
He's an interesting character, left in an interesting,unstable (pun wasn't intended!) predicament - and I do think this is one way it could run. (I have other head-canons, running otherwise!) Yes, re inaction being action: cf 'not to decide is to decide not to' - except with Rabadash it is perfectly conscious, and driven by revenge, for the initial humiliation, but even more for the petty-minded triumphalism which wouldn't let it rest. (I had lots of thinking about how trade can dominate better than war, as well, but couldn't cram it in three sentences - or not without really abusing the long-suffering semi-colon and dash. :D )
Oh, Rabadash - you never did learn, did you? The punishment certainly wasn't one from which a lesson could be gleaned, though, only a humiliation, as edenfalling said above.
So be it: let them weigh him and judge him trivial, a thing of no account.
But he in his turn could judge, and he saw that Narnia's brief flowering was even now withering, without those Four; it would not be long before she was light as dust, next to the gathering strength of her neighbours, and then - oh, then he would be a thing of no account indeed, a carefully neutral bystander and trader, as the weight of other armies fell on Narnia.
Reply
I have always thought Aslan made a stupid mistake turning Rabadash into a donkey. The curse to remain in Tashbaan, sure; that makes sense. Some subsidiary punishment -- perhaps a curse of silence? -- to be raised at the Autumn Festival, yeah, okay, I can see that. Rabadash needed a reality check, and obviously military defeat alone wasn't cutting it. But the sheer, petty, vicious humiliation of the curse Aslan chose -- not to mention the way he imposed it, which was designed to provoke laughter among the northerners -- does not speak well of his compassion, not to mention his political judgment.
Reply
Yes, re inaction being action: cf 'not to decide is to decide not to' - except with Rabadash it is perfectly conscious, and driven by revenge, for the initial humiliation, but even more for the petty-minded triumphalism which wouldn't let it rest.
(I had lots of thinking about how trade can dominate better than war, as well, but couldn't cram it in three sentences - or not without really abusing the long-suffering semi-colon and dash. :D )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Great work, thank you!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment