POTENTIAL TOMB SPOILER


Interesting thread over on a newsgroup. It doesn't mention Jack, but touches on the way he saves Vickie.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc...97182cbcdb

That was an interesting thread about the Phantom and the Beast, but I think I missed the part about Jack. Like someone said: it's LIT 101.

Stephanie

POTENTIAL TOMB SPOILER


Interesting thread over on a newsgroup. It doesn't mention Jack, but touches on the way he saves Vickie.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc...97182cbcdb

Interesting, though I wonder if someone is taking Phantom of the Opera and Beauty and the Beast a little too personally....

As far as Jack is concerned, and the main female characters in the stories mentioned as well....

**POSSIBLE SPOILER: THE TOMB***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A promise made under duress, particularly to the one who put you under duress in the first place, does not count. Jack, and the ladies in the other stories, did the right thing.

Besides, where is it written that there must be "punishment" for promise-breaking in stories. Obviously, there is a long tradition of such, but also an equally long tradition where it doesn't happen. It certainly isn't mandatory - what would be the suspense in that?

[align=left]That was an interesting thread about the Phantom and the Beast, but I think I missed the part about Jack.

Oh, too bad.

Like someone said: it's LIT 101.

Find that unilluminating both there and here.

Interesting, though I wonder if someone is taking Phantom of the Opera and Beauty and the Beast a little too personally....

As far as Jack is concerned, and the main female characters in the stories mentioned as well....

**POSSIBLE SPOILER: THE TOMB***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A promise made under duress, particularly to the one who put you under duress in the first place, does not count. Jack, and the ladies in the other stories, did the right thing.

Besides, where is it written that there must be "punishment" for promise-breaking in stories. Obviously, there is a long tradition of such, but also an equally long tradition where it doesn't happen. It certainly isn't mandatory - what would be the suspense in that?

I don't actually disapprove of what Jack did -- that is, I don't think the ending of THE TOMB is less valuable because of it.

However, as a matter of general interest I think you're dismissing his points a little too readily, even if you ultimately wound up not feeling the same way. He's not saying there's a rule that says promise-breakers must be punished. He's saying that works where ethical choices have consequences -- whatever they may be -- are -- or may be -- richer than ones where they don't. I do think it's an interesting subject to think about and discuss.

Also, I think he intends to apply his thought a bit more to works that have a mythic or fable quality to them. RJ books are very realistic and much of the point of Jack himself is how pragmatic he is (though of course with a strong sense of honor, personal ethics, etc.)* -- so I don't know that even that guy would have a problem with the end of THE TOMB.

-Oss

* And of course the tension between those two parts of Jack is exactly what makes his choice at the end of THE TOMB so interesting.

I don't actually disapprove of what Jack did -- that is, I don't think the ending of THE TOMB is less valuable because of it.

However, as a matter of general interest I think you're dismissing his points a little too readily, even if you ultimately wound up not feeling the same way. He's not saying there's a rule that says promise-breakers must be punished. He's saying that works where ethical choices have consequences -- whatever they may be -- are -- or may be -- richer than ones where they don't. I do think it's an interesting subject to think about and discuss.

Also, I think he intends to apply his thought a bit more to works that have a mythic or fable quality to them. RJ books are very realistic and much of the point of Jack himself is how pragmatic he is (though of course with a strong sense of honor, personal ethics, etc.)* -- so I don't know that even that guy would have a problem with the end of THE TOMB.

-Oss

* And of course the tension between those two parts of Jack is exactly what makes his choice at the end of THE TOMB so interesting.

I agree with you on this, Oss. I don't think there is anything "written (in stone)" that oaths have consequences, but it is certainly a common literary theme (so, I guess, in a sense, it IS written).

I don't actually disapprove of what Jack did -- that is, I don't think the ending of THE TOMB is less valuable because of it.

However, as a matter of general interest I think you're dismissing his points a little too readily, even if you ultimately wound up not feeling the same way.

I wasn't being dismissive. If I was, my response would have ended at the smiley. My little joke was just a secondary thought while contemplating the actual question.

He's not saying there's a rule that says promise-breakers must be punished. He's saying that works where ethical choices have consequences -- whatever they may be -- are -- or may be -- richer than ones where they don't. I do think it's an interesting subject to think about and discuss.

It is an interesting question. In following the discussion thread, though, I did get the impression that the original poster and those who agreed with him actually were saying that there was some sort of rule in stories that consequences for breaking promises were supposed to be negative.

Also, I think he intends to apply his thought a bit more to works that have a mythic or fable quality to them. RJ books are very realistic and much of the point of Jack himself is how pragmatic he is (though of course with a strong sense of honor, personal ethics, etc.)* -- so I don't know that even that guy would have a problem with the end of THE TOMB.

-Oss

* And of course the tension between those two parts of Jack is exactly what makes his choice at the end of THE TOMB so interesting.

I think the difference is more classic fable vs. modern fiction, since it's pretty hard to see The Tomb as realistic (unless you know something I don't! :eek: ).

Either way, I still say a promise made under duress, particularly to the one who put you under duress in the first place, does not count.