Schueler's split personality

I was just rereading the Prologue in LAMA and it occurred to me that maybe Schueler was the most respected -possibly even beloved - of the remaining command crew after the bomb, among the Adams and Eves and that the Book of Schueler was attributed to him after his death to give it more legitimacy. Does this seem likely to anyone else or is it just my imagination in overdrive?

It's possible, but we haven't got enpught information about this eraly period in Safehold history to determine. There are many indications that he did not write "The Book", but with equal success record in the Stone may have been written not by him. We do not even know who won the "war against the Fallen" and at what cost.

ManyMyths wrote:I was just rereading the Prologue in LAMA and it occurred to me that maybe Schueler was the most respected -possibly even beloved - of the remaining command crew after the bomb, among the Adams and Eves and that the Book of Schueler was attributed to him after his death to give it more legitimacy. Does this seem likely to anyone else or is it just my imagination in overdrive?

It's unlikely that Schuler has a split personality, unless he is some sort or Jekyll and Hyde character that wrote the book of Schuler and then deeply regretted writing it.

It's more likely that there are two versions of Schuler, the version of the key and the version of the book. It is far more likely that the hologram in the key is the correct version. That is an actual image of a real person speaking, who is concerned with the ethics of the church. We have plenty of textev that the "church" rewrote history, in fact the writ itself is a lie and the Book of Schuler the worst part of the writ. Whoever wrote the book of the writ is a real monster of a person. OTOH, some real monsters have been able to dissemble well enough in the short term and it is only a short hologram. Adolph Hitler was said by some to be a charming fellow in person, at least Neville Chamberlain thought so. Enough so that he dismissed some of Hitlers more extreme positions as mere nationalist rhetoric. Hitler would never actually do any of those nasty things, oh no. Google, Chamberlain Hitler charming, if you don't believe me.

Sharp Claw wrote:... at least Neville Chamberlain thought so. Enough so that he dismissed some of Hitlers more extreme positions as mere nationalist rhetoric. Hitler would never actually do any of those nasty things, oh no. Google, Chamberlain Hitler charming, if you don't believe me.

I'm not a great historian, but I think Chamberlain takes a bad rap. To my mind he was perfectly aware of what Hitler was doing (altho maybe stuck in a WW1 mindset). He did what he could do in supporting a prewar buildup and sought out ways to delay while the buildup occurred.

jgnfld wrote:

Sharp Claw wrote:... at least Neville Chamberlain thought so. Enough so that he dismissed some of Hitlers more extreme positions as mere nationalist rhetoric. Hitler would never actually do any of those nasty things, oh no. Google, Chamberlain Hitler charming, if you don't believe me.

I'm not a great historian, but I think Chamberlain takes a bad rap. To my mind he was perfectly aware of what Hitler was doing (altho maybe stuck in a WW1 mindset). He did what he could do in supporting a prewar buildup and sought out ways to delay while the buildup occurred.

You are right about that WW1 mindset. Britian had taken horrible casualties in the trenches during WW1. Anything but more of that pretty well sums up Chamberlain and his fellow Brits point of view. There was indeed a buildup going on, but it was badly hindered by that mind set.

We had the same trouble on this side of the pond. We just watched Ken Burns' "The Roosevelts" where the story is told on PBS of the difficulty FDR had dealing with American isolationism during the same time frame.

Don

There is a revisionist theory among recent historians that Chamberlain wasn't quite the fool that he was portrayed to be early in WW II, based on a fairly recent release of his private notes. You can look that up also. But it is also clear that Chamberlain, an experienced politician, leader of the majority party in Britain and someone who had undoubtedly been lied to before, was at least somewhat taken in, if not totally played by Hitler. Chamberlain said he believed that Hitler was a man of his word, when Hitler said he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe. That and the "peace in our time" comment may have been wishful thinking on Chamberlains part or comments for public consumption. The revisionist theory is that Chamberlain knowingly sold out the Czechs to buy time for Britain to re-arm. But Chamberlain showed nowhere near the foresight or practical view of reality of Churchill and only really started to re-arm Britain in earnest and make a mutual defense treaty with Poland after the Munich Accords fell apart when Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia after annexing the Sudetenland. Those moves came very close to being too little, too late. Very much too late for the Czechs and Poles and a few million jews, gypsies and other ethnic minorities and people Hitler considered politically incorrect.

Anyway, It was not my intention to hijack this topic into an origins of WW II topic. Hitler was just an example of a human monster who could turn on the charm when it suited his purposes, like many historic sociopaths. That Schuler could be such a person, who could make a charming holograph for the Wylsynns is only one possible theory. I still believe the real Schuler is not the same person that wrote the So-called Book of Schuler. Maybe some future snippets will provide some more fodder for this discussion.

Sharp Claw wrote:There is a revisionist theory among recent historians that Chamberlain wasn't quite the fool that he was portrayed to be early in WW II, based on a fairly recent release of his private notes. You can look that up also. But it is also clear that Chamberlain, an experienced politician, leader of the majority party in Britain and someone who had undoubtedly been lied to before, was at least somewhat taken in, if not totally played by Hitler. Chamberlain said he believed that Hitler was a man of his word, when Hitler said he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe. That and the "peace in our time" comment may have been wishful thinking on Chamberlains part or comments for public consumption. The revisionist theory is that Chamberlain knowingly sold out the Czechs to buy time for Britain to re-arm. But Chamberlain showed nowhere near the foresight or practical view of reality of Churchill and only really started to re-arm Britain in earnest and make a mutual defense treaty with Poland after the Munich Accords fell apart when Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia after annexing the Sudetenland. Those moves came very close to being too little, too late. Very much too late for the Czechs and Poles and a few million jews, gypsies and other ethnic minorities and people Hitler considered politically incorrect.

Anyway, It was not my intention to hijack this topic into an origins of WW II topic. Hitler was just an example of a human monster who could turn on the charm when it suited his purposes, like many historic sociopaths. That Schuler could be such a person, who could make a charming holograph for the Wylsynns is only one possible theory. I still believe the real Schuler is not the same person that wrote the So-called Book of Schuler. Maybe some future snippets will provide some more fodder for this discussion.

I think that we all are somewhat prone to be vulnerable to the old adage that looking back, especially over other people's shoulders, creates 20-20 vision. "They should have known..." we think. I doubt it myself. We have too many things going on currently for me to have much faith in 20-20 vision.

As for Schuler, my own jury is out on that one. You could well be right.

Don

Hi Sharp Claw,

Kudos for very good analysis.

I agree the book was probably written by someone else, probably Chihiro.

L

Sharp Claw wrote:There is a revisionist theory among recent historians that Chamberlain wasn't quite the fool that he was portrayed to be early in WW II, based on a fairly recent release of his private notes. You can look that up also. But it is also clear that Chamberlain, an experienced politician, leader of the majority party in Britain and someone who had undoubtedly been lied to before, was at least somewhat taken in, if not totally played by Hitler. Chamberlain said he believed that Hitler was a man of his word, when Hitler said he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe. That and the "peace in our time" comment may have been wishful thinking on Chamberlains part or comments for public consumption. The revisionist theory is that Chamberlain knowingly sold out the Czechs to buy time for Britain to re-arm. But Chamberlain showed nowhere near the foresight or practical view of reality of Churchill and only really started to re-arm Britain in earnest and make a mutual defense treaty with Poland after the Munich Accords fell apart when Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia after annexing the Sudetenland. Those moves came very close to being too little, too late. Very much too late for the Czechs and Poles and a few million jews, gypsies and other ethnic minorities and people Hitler considered politically incorrect.

Anyway, It was not my intention to hijack this topic into an origins of WW II topic. Hitler was just an example of a human monster who could turn on the charm when it suited his purposes, like many historic sociopaths. That Schuler could be such a person, who could make a charming holograph for the Wylsynns is only one possible theory. I still believe the real Schuler is not the same person that wrote the So-called Book of Schuler. Maybe some future snippets will provide some more fodder for this discussion.