Quote Originally Posted by Lutefisk View Post
The parallel I draw with Alphinaud is not because of any perceived arrogance on Lyse's behalf. It's because that they both show inability to put themselves in the shoes of people who have had vastly different life experiences than them, something a leader ought to be able to do.
I don't have any issue with your opinion of Lyse's capabilities, as we are all entitled to our own points of view.

What I am strenously objecting, however, is the failure of people to understand that the conclusions they draw are based on subjective interpretations of any given set of facts.

For example, I strongly disagree with your opinion that Lyse is constantly "deriding" people, and my own subjective conclusions are based on the same scenes that you draw your conclusions from. In Ala Gannha, yes, it's true that she displayed ignorance at first of how badly peoples had suffered after years of occupation and failed rebellions.

But you cannot deny that she also quickly realised the differences in her situation and those of the villagers. In fact, she felt badly about it, and that was one of the first major blows to her self-confidence, the question of whether she could even claim to fight as an Ala Mhigan. It was Meffrid who explained to her that what mattered was that she was now willing to fight for her people, and in that sense, she was no different from him, who was once also an "outsider".

I put it to you that your view of Lyse is biased in this case, which is why you view these facts under a very different light, compared to me.

So, in short, you're welcome to your opinion of Lyse's arrogance, as long as you're aware that the "facts" you rely on for your judgment are far from objective and universally true.

I wouldn't want to drag the discussion out further, but I would like to make one final point: There are many objections made against Lyse in this thread, and a good number of them fair and valid points. I would say, however, the one point I strongly oppose is the suggestion that the story should relied more on "showing than telling".

Frankly, if people who rely on this argument are not willing to confront and question their own biases to begin with, it's rather presumptuous to accuse a writer of not doing enough to "show". How would they account for the fact that I "got" what was "shown" to me, from the same scenes we watched, but they didn't? Does the fault really lie in the writing, or is it not more the case that, somehow, because of their different perspective, they didn't quite get what the writer was driving at?

Now, by making this argument, I'm not trying to insult other thread contributors. I'm just trying, as robustly as I can, to bring across a point that is often very hard to explain.

Having thought a bit more about it, I wonder if the root of the disagreement stems from the different ways we view and judge leadership. For those who come from a task-oriented culture, where measurable, quantifiable achievement is the preferred gauge of a leader's competency, it's perhaps no surprise then that Lyse would measure up very poorly in their judgment.

I happen to have a very different view about leadership. To me, character and intangible qualities are much more important. I find, from real-life experience, that those who demonstrate qualities like integrity, loyalty, a willingness to accept one's shortcomings, a determination to strive to overcome one's mistakes, these are the types of people who generally become good leaders in the long run. Competency as something that can be addressed with time and effort; character failings, on the other hand, are much harder to overcome, as it's akin to trying to change an individual's personality.

So, while it's true that Lyse didn't do the "heavy-lifting" for much of the story, that to me was always a secondary point. We have to wonder, in the first place, why people are willing to do for the "heavy-lifting" on her behalf. It's because they all believe in her, in the sincerity of her conviction, and in the truth of her determination to become a better person, worthy of the revolution.

Have none of you ever wondered, if Lyse were truly such a horrible person — as many of you seem to think she is — how did she come to have such friends who are willing to go through hell and high water for her?

There's an expression in real life that's worth mulling over: To judge a person, look at the company she keeps.

Can Lyse really be that bad, if the people around her, don't think so?

Well, maybe the critics would claim again that this is a failure in writing. But I'd like the critics to, one day perhaps, take a step back and re-look the situation with a fresh pair of eyes, and hopefully notice all it takes is a change of perspective, and you'll get a very different story.