I must admit that the compassionate in me has a problem with not seizing the option to save all crew by surrendering if the option is lingering on the table. Honor did it. Honor ordered McKeon to surrender. It was said to be one of the hardest things she had to do.
Prior to capture by Tourville, Honor had no other option than surrender. Tourville had the drop on her. Fighting would have been futile. And she and her crew would have died for no tactical or strategic objective.
Why did Henke not surrender?
There was nothing to protect. No planet of innocents. No space station bristling with civilians, no shipping. And Honor and her ships had already escaped. No reason to choose death. At this point, what are you dying for? What is your tactical objective? Your tactical objective then becomes the lives of your crew and your own. And obviously classified materials.
Even so, this problem yet remains ...
Nor could she misunderstand what Horn was thinking now. They couldn't afford to let the technology aboard Ajax fall into Havenite hands. Haven had captured more than enough examples of Manticoran weapons and electronics tech at the outbreak of the war, but the systems aboard Ajax and her sisters now were substantially more advanced than anything they might have captured then, and the Alliance had already suffered graphic evidence of just how quickly Haven had managed to put anything they'd captured to good use. The Navy had built in the very best safeguards it could to make sure that as little as possible of that tech would be recoverable if a ship was lost, and virtually all of her molycircs could be wiped with the entry of the proper command codes, but no possible system was perfect. And if Tigh couldn't get the after ring back on-line, there was only one way to prevent Ajax and everything aboard her from falling into Havenite hands.
Vince wrote:Instead of asking 'What would Honor do?', instead remember 'What Thomas Theisman said to Honor regarding her responsibility to herself, her navy, and her nation' (after the battle with Filareta)
Granted. But I think the situation allows the better of both. In remembering what Theisman said to her, I think Honor would choose to not risk the lives of her crew still alive by an antagonizing move. And the lives of all the similarly vexed remaining spacers, in life pods and future battles, to be. Manticoran and Haven. Harrington and Henke owed Manticoran spacers that. As well as Haven's. And every Manticoran ally is owed that. Manticore is charged with being an honorable Star Nation all of the time.
Note that the enemy was responsible for their own actions in Theisman's view.
Indeed. But remember, to Haven, Manticore is the enemy. And those Manties are responsible for their actions too. *Perhaps even more so on a moral level — since Manticore was cast by the author as the "good guys."
Aside:
*I've noticed the fact that roseandheather was among the very first to recognize the redeeming qualities of Haven. That such principles as code, conduct, morals and ethics do apply. She knew that we must not forget that our enemies are human too.
Some have said that readers are acting on what we know that the characters do not. Personally I am not. The Manties acted improperly for what they knew. Henke knew that she could save her entire crew and her own ass too. By simply surrendering, every one lives. Henke too. You would live to fight another day, in an attempt to escape Hades for instance. Yet Henke'd rather take time to spit cold in the face of a warm enemy. Than being thankful to spare everyone's lives. And I hear vacation on Haven had improved. Might even turn into a round trip. Everyone knew that the current crop of Peeps were honorable. Honor had been telling them.
At any rate, there would have been hope. Someone said "you can't just kill your crew, you must give them a chance. Well if you really feel that way, then give all of them a chance by giving them Option A.
To be, or not to be is the question
To live — That is the answer.
I must apologize to Honor Harrington for those of us accusing you of having within you that same choice, Honor Would Have Surrendered. Who was it that said your responsibility is to your own people?
Your own people as opposed to the enemy's people? Your own people as opposed to hardware, as opposed to software? As opposed to situations? When Theisman told me that my responsibility is to my own people, I would have taken it to heart. Honor would have surrendered to save her crew. It isn't just Honor's life, which Honor would gladly sacrifice. It is the life of her crew, where option is on the table to carry thru with that responsibility to her own people. Hell, only a third of her people got out.
Again, there was no current tactical or strategic objective achievable in that system. Your Admiral and most ships had already escaped. Honor knew when to rewrite the rules of war, to toss the book, and follow her heart. Remember when she allowed Cachat to depart her ship after boarding?
Honor has a very heavy heart from all the lives that marched to their death for her. And against her. Her heart will always be heavy. But her conscience will always be clear. If I had made the decision that Henke made, my conscience would be in peril.
Honor would not have made the same move. It is your duty to escape. You can't escape if you fail to survive. Throwing your life away, for no tactical or strategic objective other than compensator secrets, can also be argued tantamount to treason. She could have made the decision for all to escape death.
On the one hand you say, her duty is to her own people. Yet she acted as if her duty is to neither, or herself. Only one third of her crew escaped. When is a life in hand worth more than a life in the bush?
It boils down to this.
Kirk cheated.
Be that as it may, I don't like Admiral Henke's solution to the *Kobayashi Maru.
Her actions are supported by her Monarch and her government. But to certain Naval Officers it will not settle in their stomachs. And a notion will visit her personnel file.
Vince wrote:The problem a lot of people here seem to have is they are looking at the situation from the point of the civilian reader with near perfect information, with the benefit of hindsight --AKA the armchair admiral-- and not as the military person in charge on the spot at the time.
Look at the situation from the characters point of view, as the Captain or Admiral in the RMN, as the situation developed, instead.
Putting myself in their shoes is from whence my issues sprout. That's part of my problem. I have no other option but to impart how I would feel onto the character. For the very reason that people are different and you can never predict how someone will assimilate a particular situation. Any Admiral can range from a Byng to a Pavel Young to a Theisman to a Harrington. To a Cthia. So essentially, I am putting myself in their place. And I can only be true to how I would act — being myself, an honorable person.
Nevertheless, you have a valid point and I agree. In my own case, however, I am not concerned with the near perfect information that Henke knew — but rather, the perfect. And no hindsight is required.
Let's examine the things Henke did know, that didn't require hindsight.
1. She knew her ship could not be repaired in time to escape the Peeps.
2. She knew Ajax could not effectively fight and survive.
3. She knew she could not evacuate even half of her crew in time.
4. She can save all crew and herself by surrendering but has to consider trade secrets lost to the enemy.
Other factors that all of the characters — both sides knew.
Henke knew that she was fifth in line for succession. The entire galaxy knows that too.
Admiral Redmont knew what Theisman would do if something sleazy was done to someone fifth in line for succession to the Manticoran throne. Evident by Redmont's sentiment ...
And just how do you think Admiral Giscard—or, worse, Admiral Theisman—is going to react if I open fire on a ship that can't even return fire just to keep them from abandoning?"
Let's turn this sentiment on its side ...
'And just how do you think Admiral Giscard—or, worse, Admiral Theisman—is going to react if I open fire on a ship that can't even return fire just to keep them from destroying their advanced military secrets and hardware?
After killing many of Elizabeth's family via assassination, Admiral Henke knew that the Pritchart administration would not want to kill her.
****** *
What is the difference between ethics and morals?
"The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person's moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent. When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer's personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty, even at the expense of setting him free possibly to murder again. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." - http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-dif ... morals.htm
Morals: are related to personal character and belief as to what is right and wrong.
Ethics are the proper behavior regarding the social system where morals are applied.
A social faux pas committed within the realm of morality is less accepted than a social faux pas committed within the realm of ethics.
Honor helped shape Henke's grasp of tactics and strategy. No one can teach morals or ethics. Or ensure how much of either one chooses to digest. In my eyes, Henke's actions lacked morality. Under Elizabeth Winton's code, it was also possibly lacking in ethics. More pointedly, it was lacking in Henke's grasp of ethics.
Therefore, ethics sets up the rules to be adhered to by some group of people. Morality measures whether somebody or some group follows the ethics by right or wrong behavior wherever and whenever the ethics are determined to be applicable. —Web.
If you're lacking in ethics you're lacking four score.
If you're lacking in morality you're lacking at the core. —Cthia
Morality is the purview of each officer.
Ethics is the purview of Queen Elizabeth and her realm.
And of course, Elizabeth stares in the mirror at her own morality.
The Star Kingdom of Manticore is maturing into the Star Empire whose ethics will not be founded by someone searching it with such a lacking moral compass as a Pavel Young.
Henke's moral compass was a tad skewed as well.
*Kobayashi Maru
The Kobayashi Maru is a test in the fictional Star Trek universe. It is a Starfleet training exercise designed to test the character of cadets in the command track at Starfleet Academy. The Kobayashi Maru test was first depicted in the opening scene of the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and also appears in the 2009 film Star Trek. Screenwriter Jack B. Sowards is credited with inventing the test, naming it after a friend whose last name was Kobayashi.[1] The test's name is occasionally used among Star Trek fans or those familiar with the series to describe a no-win scenario, or a solution that involves redefining the problem.
The notional primary goal of the exercise is to rescue the civilian vessel Kobayashi Maru in a simulated battle with the Klingons. The disabled ship is located in the Klingon Neutral Zone, and any Starfleet ship entering the zone would cause an interstellar incident. The approaching cadet crew must decide whether to attempt rescue of the Kobayashi Maru crew – endangering their own ship and lives – or leave the Kobayashi Maru to certain destruction. If the cadet chooses to attempt rescue, the simulation is designed to guarantee that the ship is destroyed with the loss of all crew members.
Simulation
In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, the simulation takes place on a replica of a starship bridge, with the test-taker as captain and other Starfleet members, officers or other cadets, in other key positions. In the scenario of the 2280s, the cadet receives a distress signal stating that the Kobayashi Maru has struck a gravitic mine in the Klingon Neutral Zone and is rapidly losing power, hull integrity and life support. There are no other vessels nearby. The cadet is faced with a decision:
Attempt to rescue the Kobayashi Maru's crew and passengers, which involves violating the Neutral Zone and potentially provoking the Klingons into hostile action or an all-out war; or
Abandon the Kobayashi Maru, potentially preventing war but leaving the crew and passengers to die.
If the cadet chooses to save the Kobayashi Maru the scenario progresses quickly. The bridge officers notify the cadet that they are in violation of the treaty. As the starship enters the Neutral Zone, the communications officer loses contact with the crippled vessel. Klingon starships then appear on an intercept course. Attempts to contact them are met with radio silence; indeed, their only response is to open fire with devastating results. The objective of the test is not for the cadet to outfight the opponent but rather to test the cadet's reaction to a no-win situation.
Saavik's test
The opening of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is itself a Kobayashi Maru test, but this is not revealed until after the end of the scene, leading the audience to believe that this is a "genuine" combat scenario involving the U.S.S. Enterprise. The test-taker, Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley), is in command of the simulated U.S.S. Enterprise. Captain Spock is in his familiar role as science officer and second-in-command with Dr. McCoy standing by on the bridge, Uhura as communications officer, Hikaru Sulu as helm officer, and (as the viewers later learn) cadets filling other roles.
The scene, using the same set built to represent the bridge of the Enterprise later in the film, is a vehicle to introduce the concept of the no-win scenario as presented to cadets. The main plot deals with James Kirk's response when finally forced to face such a scenario in real life.
Shortly after the test begins, Saavik orders Sulu to plot an intercept course with the distressed ship. Contact with the ship is lost, and three Klingon battle cruisers appear on an intercept course. Outgunned and in violation of the treaty, Saavik orders a retreat, but the Klingon ships quickly overtake and cripple the Enterprise. Further attacks kill Sulu, Uhura, McCoy, and Spock. Montgomery Scott reports that the Enterprise is dead in space. Saavik orders that a log buoy be launched, and that the crew abandon ship.
Admiral James Kirk, who had been monitoring the situation from a control room, halts the simulation. All the "deceased" officers rise, and Spock (now revealed as the cadets' instructor) orders the trainees to the briefing room. Saavik protests being subjected to a no-win scenario, opining that it does not properly reflect her command abilities. Kirk explains that the test is meant to reveal how the subject deals with a no-win scenario, and that how one deals with death is as important as how one deals with life. Later in the film, after repeated inquiries from Saavik, Kirk says that the exercise is a true no-win scenario because there is no correct resolution—it is a test of character.
James T. Kirk's test
James T. Kirk took the test three times while at Starfleet Academy. Before his third attempt, Kirk surreptitiously reprogrammed the simulator so that it was possible to rescue the freighter. This fact is revealed in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, as Kirk, Saavik and others are marooned. Saavik accuses Kirk of never having faced the no-win scenario. Kirk replies that he doesn't believe in such a thing. Despite having cheated, Kirk was awarded a commendation for "original thinking".
As Spock had not entered Starfleet Academy as a command-track cadet, he did not take the Kobayashi Maru test while there. In his death scene at the conclusion of The Wrath of Khan, he describes his sacrifice as his solution to the no-win scenario.
****** *
****** *
****** *
****** *
If I had been Henke, I wouldn't have been able to look Redmont in the eye.
bhasseler wrote:I think it's instructive that Theisman basically takes Henke's side on this.
I disagree. Reading between the lines, Theisman takes Henke's legal side. He does not take her moral side. The entire following passage is intimately laced with that fact.
I would love to have textev of that conversation.
"Admiral Redmont and I have already met, Mr. Secretary," Michelle told him.
"So I understand." Theisman smiled thinly. "On the other hand, a little more time has passed since then, and Admiral Redmont and I have had the opportunity to . . . discuss his actions at Solon."
"Sir, Admiral Redmont didn't—"
"I didn't say I didn't understand what happened, Admiral," Theisman told her. "And, if we're going to be honest, I might very well have reacted the same way if I'd thought you'd deliberately waited to abandon ship until you knew I'd sailed into your ambush. But if we're going to keep a handle on atrocities and counter-atrocities, then anytime something like this comes along, it needs to be addressed squarely. I don't doubt that Admiral Redmont acted correctly after he'd picked up your surviving people. And I don't doubt that the two of you handled yourselves with proper professional courtesy. I hope, however, that you'll accept my invitation and give all of us an opportunity to discuss the incident and our reactions to it in a less . . . charged atmosphere, shall we say?"
"Very well, Mr. Secretary," Michelle said. "Of course I'll accept your invitation."
"I didn't say I didn't understand what happened, Admiral," Theisman told her. "And, if we're going to be honest, I might very well have reacted the same way if I'd thought you'd deliberately waited to abandon ship until you knew I'd sailed into your ambush.
The point is that everyone would have thought that. Not just anyone could have rather everyone would have. Possibly a strong indication that you don't do it.
I see your hand up in the rear of the class Johnny ...
And yes, you are correct in your facts that the universal symbol of surrender is striking the wedge. But ... a more compassionate enemy may be inclined or lured to think surrender is imminent on the heels of evacuation. Come on, we all know what some factors are that may drive an evacuation ... total loss of fusion bottle control with no possibility of containment or core ejection is one. So a more, let's say, compassionate enemy could be influenced by his own impressions by an enemy impersonating a mortally wounded adversary, but should you do it?
I mean like "don't mistake my kindness for weakness."
Let's be real, Admiral Redmont could have blown Ajax into phucking space dust at the edge ... no ... at the very fringes of their own missile range. Now Manticore has made it fashionable for Haven to write into its rules of engagement the missive to "approach any engaged ship with extreme caution and fire at the very fringes of your own missile range."
The hell with firing solutions or efficiency. Simply destroy. Because those infamous Manty ships are damn tricky and sneaky, and one doesn't have to worry if something is up your enemy's sleeve if you blow his sleeves and his ass off. All cause and effect of a blasphemous act. That approach will also take care of any similar such animal playing possum. Because as you yourself said, ultimately this is war. NOW! ...
We're gonna treat your wounded-ass lamed-ships like the Ebola plague.
Your rules. Technically, Admiral Redmont hadn't formally asked for and formally received a surrender. But decent enemies don't deduct from decency because of formality. That's too steep a moral price to pay for victory. It's why you don't torture your own civilian or strap explosives to your young as a booby trap. Do not coy with the sanctity of decency. Or you are no better than Mesa. Worse, you are playing with fire and flirting with escalation on an inhumane level.
What if Peep communications were out? Then in whom does the burden of "in good faith" lie? Does it lie in the hands of the Peep who has gotten the draw on you. Or does it lie in your next move?
'Be careful. Don't twitch a finger. I might shoot you.'
Remember Kirk, facing Vger, belayed an order to scan Vger. Kirk said that it might be perceived as some form of attack.
Likewise, by all who morally condone Henke's action, also support the sentiment that any future evidence of a Manty abandoning ship should be considered as a hostile action.
To assassinate or not to assassinate?
To pull a psyche, an 'okie doke', a ruse?
To slip down the dark side?
It's a slippery slope.
What is the difference in an enemy ship feigning a distress call then firing on them when they come into range, than Henke's move?
That's right, Henke's intentions should be brought to bear. Because Tester knows "the road to hell is paved in good intentions."
Perhaps some would be slow to condemn Henke because of her intentions. But her intentions were hidden within ignorance. Admirals Byng and Crandall would have exalted company. Elvis Santino had good intentions too.
Tactical Considerations:
Was Ajax immobile? It could have avoided ballistic attacks. And Ajax had the reach advantage to swat Haven's ships from beyond Haven's range until ammunition runs out - in order to buy more time to abandon ship, set scuttling charges, destroy hardware - if their surrender terms of securing hardware and data was declined.
Henke's move was lacking in honor and fundamental decency.
During my search for 'what is the question,' ...
It's not so much that the Peep CO should not have taken an evacuation as a sign of surrender, it is that the Manties should not have been presumptuous and taken the Peeps decision of not to fire as "wanting to close for better firing solutions," or the more laughable 'tsk' "wanting to *ask for surrender." It could have been that the Manties didn't get the memo and it's "To the Republic. No quarter. And no mercy."
*And let's be once more honest in accepting that "if the Peep's aren't firing in order to demand your surrender. Then anything else has to be perceived as asking — again, lest ... we ... are ... presumptuous.
The Peeps could have fired all missiles with one very special Achilles missile seeded within. Its sole purpose to broadcast "Can you hear me now?" (Haven's mobile carrier said their reception would be better if they did that. St. Just, Pierre and Ransom would have agreed.)
Like resigning in chess. Sometimes it's pointless to fight on.
The Peeps had honorably defeated the Manties. It was met with a dishonorable act.
That move was born out of an unbridled vehemence. The current generation of Peep enemy were worthy of better consideration. The core of Haven officers were deserving of a more honorable tactic laced with a tad more je ne sais quoi. Hasn't Honor and the Admirals mirrored in her image taught us that? If you'd like to sweeten the pot and throw a sprinkle of ethical consideration ... it wouldn't hurt.
I would have struck my wedge and opened lines of negotiation and offered to surrender. On the condition that I will wipe my databases and scuttle my hardware. I would have played on the honorable card by surrendering, placing the honorable ball in their court. What would the Peeps have done, fired on a wounded ship that has struck its wedge offering to surrender?
If yes, oh well. I'll die like a officer, with my eyes open, for my Star Kingdom. Let them live with firing on and killing Elizabeth's cousin. Thomas would eat the shit out of someone's ass. And I don't mean as a coprophiliac. And he'd share the dish with Eloise.
The combatants certainly knew proper treatment of Henke would be recommended. The characters and the reader knows too. More importantly, Henke knew. She was more valuable to her ship and crew, "inside with her ship and crew."
Henke's action lacked a certain Je ne se quoi. Which transcends ethics.
Morality and decency should not be stealthy and hidden within a ruse; subterfuge.
A Trojan horse of morality should never be utilized to deliver an ordinance of destruction.
Which brings us back to our initial consideration ... to do, or not to do.
What is the question?
To be, or not to be (as in to live or not to live) — that is the question!
Cthia's personal intimation? Henke should have chosen life, liberty, and hope for all.
Liberty ... as in freedom from death.
AFTERWORD:
Every time any Manty CO, Harrington, Terekov, even Henke herself, simply orders a "demonstration" of its capability to convert an enemy fleet to space dust, instead of actually doing it, is making a moral decision of mercy and it dispels the idea that to kill every Peep every time is a valid goal.
Henke's sole act tarnished those classy moves of Manticore. It is as bad as assassination. At its core, it is as bad as Byng blowing away unarmed battlecruisers. As bad as the MAlign sucker punching Manticore like cowards.
Instead of those classy moves of Manticore, if, in the end, you're going to revert to spitefully striking out at the hearts of a decent enemy, then why all of the subterfuge in the beginning?
If horrendous immoral acts of command decision will simply boil down to an excuse of "this is war" in the end — especially when you have been honorably defeated — then why was there wasted time and opportunity to kill enemy personnel, in the beginning of hostilities, when ordering those mock up demonstrations? Indeed, why didn't you just kill us all instead of moral and merciful "demonstrations" of mercy? There were times Manty "demonstrations" missed an opportunity to destroy entire fleets and personnel, yet these few Peep ships and crew are suddenly must kills.
An entire fleet at your button's finger tip. Why not push? Again, THIS IS WAR and you're not just allowing a single ship to escape. You're allowing an entire fleet. Now which side of the moral record do you play? Side A? Or the B-side? No flipping the record over. (Rarely was the B-side any good anyways.) I'm just saying. Manticore was the one initially judging ... Haven's decency.
Ethics and decency are not conveniences.
If you must live by the sword you must be willing to die by the sword — lest you're covered in soot and calling the kettle black.
Perhaps Michelle Henke's move wasn't as bad as strapping grenades to civilians, or the cowardly attack on the Manticore Home system. But that act has at least jumped the main track and headed in the opposite direction in the South bound lane! And quickly speeding into trouble up ahead.
If you hide any questionable action behind the excuse "it's war." Then you're covered in soot and you're calling the kettle black.
An opponent can adopt policy to begin shooting when an enemy shows sign of abandoning ship. The only thing that has kept that kind of attitude out of war, from time immemorial is the concept of ethics and morality — lest we just all be savages.
I stated that I suspect Honor will have a private talk with Michelle over her little impropriety, but I suspect Beth's more intimate reprimand will set the candle back straight. Elizabeth has worked too hard fighting the Republic's shortcomings — their lack of a sense of decency, moral fiber and a reasonable grasp of restraint. Young Elizabeth met that challenge from the first day her shoulders bore the weight, and she accomplished it with, dedication, hard work and an education system and R&D second to none. But she did it with dignity, class, pride and the grandeur of a deserving Monarch — not thru subterfuge and ruse within the core. Ask Honor.
She had a legendary temper but she reigned clean and true. Virtuous. That was evident in her intimation towards assassination and slavery. An unethical ruler couldn't, wouldn't become known to the species of treecat as "Soul of Steel." Lacking in virtue does not support a soul of steel.
Henke's tactic is not worthy of what the House of Winton stands for...
'We will beat them by intelligence, diligence, hard work ... ingenuity ... a wormhole junction that supports a high revenue ... with the aplomb worthy of the many great ones that died before, like Edward Saganami — but we will do it, Ladies and gentlemen, by keeping our feet firmly planted, our hands clean and our conscience clear. Because we do not just say we are better than they, we shall let the news of our mettle speak for itself, in all systems. Our reputation shall precede us.' —Cthia
And so it has. But I feel Henke's move has somewhat tainted the mantra of the Star Kingdom and what it stands for and the makeup of brick in the foundation.
`
Henke's move was wrong for someone ranked as high as she. Was wrong for someone as close to Honor. Wrong for the cousin of Elizabeth and someone fifth in line for succession.
WWHD: What Would Honor Do?
I must ask what would Honor do because this is the Honorverse. What Manty admiral doesn't aspire to be like Honor Harrington? What Grayson boy doesn't wield a broom stick, for the Protector's sword, as Honor Harrington? What little Grayson girl doesn't stare into space after Honor Harrington? What member of Honor's crew hasn't learned honor from Honor?
Its like, when the Aliens were closing in on all sides against Vasquez and Gorman. They chose to eat a hand grenade instead of allowing the Aliens to dispense with them, thus taking some with them. And gladly. {Bracketing the fact that it was probably a much less painful death.} Yet, the Peeps — the current generation anyways — are not alien monsters, but human, men — even decent men — fighting a decency war hailing from what has finally become a decent Republic. The Manties owe them, decency in their every action. Hasn't Honor taught that ... to us all? Honor was always more Grayson than many Graysons. More St. Austin than most Graysons. More of what Tester envisioned, more of what Julius Hanks preached, than many Graysons. Benjamin stated as much, facing off the Keys, after Reverend Hanks was murdered. Benjamin was embarrassed for the actions of his entire planet. Is there not a single Grayson worthy of Honor Harrington? I hurt the hurt that Benjamin hurts. We share the same sodium preserved tear.
Again, who other than Honor typifies that?
And what is said of movies, when a criminal is bad until the end? And on his death bed he commits his only decent act. Because even the worst of us have inside a little of the best of us. Hopefully. It is what the justice system are relying on when they try to finally get a convicted man to confess the truth. To do the right thing. Decent people don't have the inherent need to "strike at the heart of thee. To follow thee to Hell's perdition and back again. To strike at thee from the gates of Hell." Only an insane man can perceive, conceive of the likes of that. An insane man, perhaps with the name of Kahn. We as humans are better than that. Manties are better than that. Even certain Peeps are.
Ultimately, the only other solution I can see for the Manties, and still uphold the concern of treason and duty, was to, honorably suicide. Exemplified by the Japanese in the honorable incarnation of hari kari. Acceptable.
Even the most dishonorable enemy upholds that privilege. That honor. Remember Bruce Lee's sister's asshole of a killer? When he caught up to her, after she had permanently scarred his face, allowed her to commit the honorable.
To commit, in my mind, such a dirty act yet expect your life pods to be collected, to the very last man, painstakingly, which is a very clean act, is preposterous. Preposterous. I can find refuge in the sole fact that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that Honor Harrington, even in her Salamander personae, would never. Especially Sally.
I invite anyone to speak up, if they truly think Honor would have. I confidently do not. Yet I am intensely interested in how each of you would vote on Honor condoning and making the same decision. A few have already cast their vote in that area. So noted.
Ethics and morality can be taught but a passing grade cannot be guaranteed. Grasp of the concept can be varied. That is why I am interested in your honorvices.
AN ASIDE:
One of the reasons I think Honor will eventually convert to the Church of the New Way, is because Honor Harrington is a Tester's Child if anyone in the Honorverse ever was. Every thing that Honor does, is tempered in Rightfulness, in Rightness, in Righteousness — many higher adjectives of a higher entity, of higher thinking, of a higher being, of a higher state of mind. All are attributes of a God, or his God-like followers. Who other than Honor typifies that?
Do any of you really doubt that Honor Harrington will convert to the New Way? I see Emily and Hamish there converting as well. It would gel with storyline to unite the special ring that Elizabeth had conceived and had made — uniting the trio who wielded those rings with symbols of both star nations with the religion of both star nations — and in doing so, pay homage to Reverend Hanks who conceived of Holy Matrimony, recognizing that it was the righteousness of the Graysons to conceive of a religious solution to the trio's problems. The ring would truly be symbolic then.
**************************************************************ENDWARNINGS:
Consumption of this post may have adverse side effects such as a mental rash, temper tantrums, headaches, confusion, disorientation, lack of vocabulary in the form of four letter expletives, disagreement, contortions of the face, spittle ejection, slobbering, foaming at the mouth, mental diarrhea, befuddlement, crossing of the eyes, bewilderment, exasperation. On occasion, marriages have known to have been dissolved from associated fits resulting in flying remotes and busted HDTV's.
If you experience any of these symptoms from prolonged exposure, please temporarily discontinue use of forum and contact a specialist. 1-800-IAM-SICK.
.