Alix (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zodiacal_light) wrote2011-01-08 05:12 pm
zodiacal_light) wrote2011-01-08 05:12 pm
On female knights.
I am becoming more and more convinced that by Alanna's time, it's not that it's illegal for girls to be knights, it's that cultural pressure is against it, so there hasn't been one for 'round about a century.
This would neatly solve one of the most inexplicable things of SotL, for me - why Roald lets her keep her shield.
I don't buy that he can't take it away because she passed her Ordeal; there pretty much has to be a mechanism for removing knights who are unfit for duty - and unfit for not upholding the moral standards, or for disobedience that doesn't rise to death-penalty levels, or so on. And frankly, Alanna lying about her identity for her training should have been enough to kick her out over; I still suspect the reason that was allowed to slide was that Jon knew.
But if it's actually illegal for a girl to be a knight, Roald wouldn't have had a choice.
(As a corollary, this basically means that it was technically legal for Alanna to have gone openly for her shield, too, though I do doubt that she would have been allowed to. Oooh, yet another AU idea...)
This would neatly solve one of the most inexplicable things of SotL, for me - why Roald lets her keep her shield.
I don't buy that he can't take it away because she passed her Ordeal; there pretty much has to be a mechanism for removing knights who are unfit for duty - and unfit for not upholding the moral standards, or for disobedience that doesn't rise to death-penalty levels, or so on. And frankly, Alanna lying about her identity for her training should have been enough to kick her out over; I still suspect the reason that was allowed to slide was that Jon knew.
But if it's actually illegal for a girl to be a knight, Roald wouldn't have had a choice.
(As a corollary, this basically means that it was technically legal for Alanna to have gone openly for her shield, too, though I do doubt that she would have been allowed to. Oooh, yet another AU idea...)
no subject
no subject
But you could, I think, definitely read it as Jon reinforcing or reasserting existing law in the face of cultural pressure/tradition that asserts the contrary. And it makes him seem a little more like he's actually working within the legal system of Tortall, and not just randomly making changes on his personal whims.
Mostly, I just have some issues with how the apparent illegality of Alanna's knighthood is just swept under the rug in SotL. Roald doesn't take her shield away; she's not punished even for the eight years of lying. If it was really illegal, you'd think there'd be a punishment. And I don't really buy the notion that it's impossible to strip a knight who passes the Ordeal of their shield; there has to be a way to get rid of knights who have committed offenses that aren't quite up to imprisonment/death penalty levels.
...It also just occurred to me: does the text ever specifically use the word law or legal when dealing with Jon's proclamation? I know that's how it's treated, but there may be some wiggle room there.
no subject
...which would be nice.
I like this theory. A LOT. So I'm probably going to read through WM and FT to see if the information supports or negates it, through specific word-choices. I'm hoping for the former.
(there also might be room for wiggling, given the fact that Kalasin mentions it in the first instance, and Kel's narration is limited to her knowledge, in the second. How much can be chalked up to children under eleven years old possibly not knowing if it's a law or not? Well, we'll also have to look at the conversation between Wyldon and Jon in the FT prologue.)
no subject
I'm probably gonna skim through FT later myself.
no subject
I would think quite a lot, given how little modern adults often know about the laws of their country/state/town.
no subject
no subject
Of course, that's probably not how Tamora Pierce sees it, but it makes the most sense.