Stab chivalry in the back
Apr. 19th, 2012 03:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sunnyskywalkerI mentioned the other day in my rant about being bored with a lot of books that I don't like chivalry any better than grimdarkness for the sake of grimdarkness. (Ooh, look, I am edgy in entirely conventional ways! *eyeroll*) So here's my rant about that, because I'm having a ranty week.
I started reading science fiction and fantasy when I was very young, and since at the time my local library didn’t have the budget to buy many new books, a lot of what I read was “classic”-era stuff. Most of the titles, characters, and plot details have faded from my memory, but some of the tropes stuck with me. Take an example from one series from which I remember more details than most: three characters (Score, Roland/Helaine, and Pixel, iirc) have been captured by the Evil Bad Guys, when suddenly said bad guys are careless enough to turn their backs on the kids, who have weapons. They consider stabbing the EBGs in the back – but Helaine nixes the idea, since it isn’t fair or honorable. She’s been raised on Planet Knightly Chivalry, you see. (This was actually not a “classic,” but a newish sf YA series – 1980s or 1990s. It’s a persistent little trope.) My reaction? WHAT THE HELL, STAB THE FUCKERS IN THE BACK ALREADY! Baby Sunny never managed to acquire a sense of chivalry.
But it isn’t because I was a bloodthirsty little kid. No, I couldn’t explain it well, but I had the feeling that the rules for “fair fights” were in fact unfair. I mean… here these super-powerful bad guys have the kids in their grasp, and the kids have basically no skills which make it possible to overcome them unless the author intervenes… and it’s somehow “fair” to politely ignore their captors’ slip-ups and play by their captors’ rules? Who made these rules, anyway? They seem to benefit villains more often than not.
Now that I’m older, I’m able to analyze this impression a little more thoroughly. The “rules” that I seem to remember most were things like “don’t stab anyone in the back, or slit their throats while they’re sleeping, or hit below the belt, and if you’re fighting and your opponent drops his weapon, hand it back to him instead of finishing him off.” (I wish I could remember more specific details about these books, but I quit reading them so long ago. And they were not that memorable.) Because it’s important to only cut people to ribbons in a fair and honorable manner.
But who benefits most from these rules? And just as importantly, who benefits least? The rules would only keep conditions more or less equal between opponents who are already more or less equal: equal in size, weight, strength, and martial training. Even as a clueless kid projecting myself into the roles of these square-jawed knightly characters, I had an instinctive sense that I wasn’t in that group, and never would be. I’ve had some martial arts lessons, but I will never have the reach or upper body strength of many men. Plus my reflexes and depth perception are only so-so. If I were to fight by the rules in one of these “fair fights,” I’d be fighting in a match rigged against me from the start. So would most women, children, smaller men, the elderly, and anyone without as much martial training (in many settings, this means anyone poor or not of the “right” social class) as their opponent. If the rules are supposed to make things fair, but following them makes some fights unfair by definition… who are these “fair fights” fair to, exactly? And I don’t remember everyone but male knights or their futuristic counterparts being exempt from the rules. Helaine didn’t think so.
But you have to have limits on what’s acceptable in combat or it will be a brutal arms race to a nasty, brutish, and short life for everyone, I vaguely remember characters arguing. Sure. For instance, I think kidnapping people’s families and threatening to kill them is an unfair, rotten thing to do, as is harming uninvolved civilians in general. I am all in favor of fairness and decency, and Baby Sunny got mad at unfairness as only young children can. But not hitting below the belt? All that does is draw the line in a place which the skills of young, fit, trained male warriors are privileged, and their vulnerabilities protected because any technique someone might use to compensate for being smaller or weaker is designated “unfair.” How convenient.
This system only makes sense if you believe trial by combat actually works, that some supernatural force will intervene to make sure victory goes to the person who “deserves” it rather than the person with the longest reach or the best personal combat trainer. Except you can only suspend your disbelief so far. The scrawny, untrained kid bests a strong and experienced swordsman while playing by the rules… how, exactly? Some remarkable piece of luck? Again? Right. Meanwhile, if you aren’t the Designated Protagonist, you’re still SOL, aren’t you? Isn’t that where all those legions of oppressed peasants and terrified serving wenches come from? These chivalrous warriors may fight about which one of them gets to be in charge, but they set things up to make sure it will be one of them in charge, not one of those Other People. The system is rigged to ensure rule by the strong. What’s fair and honorable about that?
Nothing. Baby Sunny was right. Stab the fuckers in the back.
I started reading science fiction and fantasy when I was very young, and since at the time my local library didn’t have the budget to buy many new books, a lot of what I read was “classic”-era stuff. Most of the titles, characters, and plot details have faded from my memory, but some of the tropes stuck with me. Take an example from one series from which I remember more details than most: three characters (Score, Roland/Helaine, and Pixel, iirc) have been captured by the Evil Bad Guys, when suddenly said bad guys are careless enough to turn their backs on the kids, who have weapons. They consider stabbing the EBGs in the back – but Helaine nixes the idea, since it isn’t fair or honorable. She’s been raised on Planet Knightly Chivalry, you see. (This was actually not a “classic,” but a newish sf YA series – 1980s or 1990s. It’s a persistent little trope.) My reaction? WHAT THE HELL, STAB THE FUCKERS IN THE BACK ALREADY! Baby Sunny never managed to acquire a sense of chivalry.
But it isn’t because I was a bloodthirsty little kid. No, I couldn’t explain it well, but I had the feeling that the rules for “fair fights” were in fact unfair. I mean… here these super-powerful bad guys have the kids in their grasp, and the kids have basically no skills which make it possible to overcome them unless the author intervenes… and it’s somehow “fair” to politely ignore their captors’ slip-ups and play by their captors’ rules? Who made these rules, anyway? They seem to benefit villains more often than not.
Now that I’m older, I’m able to analyze this impression a little more thoroughly. The “rules” that I seem to remember most were things like “don’t stab anyone in the back, or slit their throats while they’re sleeping, or hit below the belt, and if you’re fighting and your opponent drops his weapon, hand it back to him instead of finishing him off.” (I wish I could remember more specific details about these books, but I quit reading them so long ago. And they were not that memorable.) Because it’s important to only cut people to ribbons in a fair and honorable manner.
But who benefits most from these rules? And just as importantly, who benefits least? The rules would only keep conditions more or less equal between opponents who are already more or less equal: equal in size, weight, strength, and martial training. Even as a clueless kid projecting myself into the roles of these square-jawed knightly characters, I had an instinctive sense that I wasn’t in that group, and never would be. I’ve had some martial arts lessons, but I will never have the reach or upper body strength of many men. Plus my reflexes and depth perception are only so-so. If I were to fight by the rules in one of these “fair fights,” I’d be fighting in a match rigged against me from the start. So would most women, children, smaller men, the elderly, and anyone without as much martial training (in many settings, this means anyone poor or not of the “right” social class) as their opponent. If the rules are supposed to make things fair, but following them makes some fights unfair by definition… who are these “fair fights” fair to, exactly? And I don’t remember everyone but male knights or their futuristic counterparts being exempt from the rules. Helaine didn’t think so.
But you have to have limits on what’s acceptable in combat or it will be a brutal arms race to a nasty, brutish, and short life for everyone, I vaguely remember characters arguing. Sure. For instance, I think kidnapping people’s families and threatening to kill them is an unfair, rotten thing to do, as is harming uninvolved civilians in general. I am all in favor of fairness and decency, and Baby Sunny got mad at unfairness as only young children can. But not hitting below the belt? All that does is draw the line in a place which the skills of young, fit, trained male warriors are privileged, and their vulnerabilities protected because any technique someone might use to compensate for being smaller or weaker is designated “unfair.” How convenient.
This system only makes sense if you believe trial by combat actually works, that some supernatural force will intervene to make sure victory goes to the person who “deserves” it rather than the person with the longest reach or the best personal combat trainer. Except you can only suspend your disbelief so far. The scrawny, untrained kid bests a strong and experienced swordsman while playing by the rules… how, exactly? Some remarkable piece of luck? Again? Right. Meanwhile, if you aren’t the Designated Protagonist, you’re still SOL, aren’t you? Isn’t that where all those legions of oppressed peasants and terrified serving wenches come from? These chivalrous warriors may fight about which one of them gets to be in charge, but they set things up to make sure it will be one of them in charge, not one of those Other People. The system is rigged to ensure rule by the strong. What’s fair and honorable about that?
Nothing. Baby Sunny was right. Stab the fuckers in the back.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-19 10:42 pm (UTC)In somewhat the same vein, when I was a little kid I felt the same way about fights on TV shows and movies shown on TV where:
a) Hero and Evil Dude are fighting, Hero is getting his ass whooped, and Damsel In Distress just stands on the sidelines looking horrified, sometimes emitting small screams when Hero gets hit over the head or pushed over some piece of furniture.
Meanwhile, there are any number of items in the room Damsel In Distress can pick up and stop acting in distress and whack Evil Dude over the head, such as a fireplace poker, heavy bookend, heavy ashtray...hell, for the amount of time she spends emoting over the fight she could have run into the kitchen and grabbed a knife or at least a heavy iron fry pan to whack Evil Dude over the head. In some shows/movies a GUN actually gets knocked out of one of the fighters' hand and lands practically at Damsel's feet, but does she ever pick up the gun and USE it to help the Hero? Nope.
b) Hero and Evil Dude get into fisticuffs and a whole bunch of other guys just stand around and watch them, usually cheering Hero on. You see this a lot in westerns. All the guys standing around are rooting for Hero, but when Evil Dude starts getting the better of Hero, no one steps in to help Hero out.
As a kid I just couldn't understand why the standerby(s) didn't get involved to help in the situation. I didn't understand why there seemed to be a rule that the Hero could only fight alone, without aid from others.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-19 10:52 pm (UTC)And a lot more bad guys should have been beaten to death with fireplace pokers because they left the Love Interest out of their calculations.
Harry Potter tried to come up with a magical reason for the one-on-one fight with lots of onlookers, but it was silly. If a whole bunch of people are willing to die fighting DEs, I don't see why they wouldn't be equally willing to die shooting off a spell at Voldemort - even if they think all they'll accomplish is distracting him so Chosen Harry can take him out. And for all they know, maybe they'll actually succeed if they hit him from behind before he knows it's coming. Win-win, right?
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-19 11:31 pm (UTC)Actually yes, at least in a few film noir flicks I've seen where Bad Guy sometimes DOES win the fight and then kidnaps Damsel...or a few westerns where Bad Guy wins the fight and Hero is left bleeding in the street, most of the crowd just murmurs disapproval, as Hero's Buddy helps wounded Hero away.
Of course eventually in the story Hero, and The Side of Good, wins out. But for a certain span of time in the middle of the story, Evil Dude prevails because no one steps in to help the Hero.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-20 06:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-20 02:48 am (UTC)Quark throws down his weapon and basically says “No, this isn’t a duel, this is an execution. I’ve got no combat training, he’s a trained warrior twice my size. You want to kill me, kill me, but I’m not going to salve your consciences by maintaining this charade of fairness.”
Martial honor tends to be indistinguisable from the ethics of a bully...
(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-20 06:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-20 03:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-20 06:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-04-20 06:35 pm (UTC)