Spoiler Warning for BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

We may end up seeing a truly impressive example of 'trauma bonding' at some point in the future.

One has to wonder how many bonds might form when the Yawata Strike Memorial/Cenotaph is dedicated on Sphinx.

Given the number of 'cats and humans that will probably be present and the heightened emotional level everyone will be experiencing, it could give the SFS a collective fit.

One also has to wonder how Honor would handle being there as well.

roseandheather wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Let's see now.....Sorrow Singer not bonded and in deep grief. Alfred Harrington not bonded and in deep grief. Nimitz mentioned that Alfred's mind glow was attractive when Alfred was younger. Sorrow Singer is no longer needed as her Clan's Memory Singer.

If they meet, they will likely bond.

On the one hand, the 'trauma bonding' is an Honorverse trope that can only show up so many times, I think.

On the other hand, there was a lot of trauma going around after Oyster Bay.

And while I admit that if we're going to see another treecat bonding I really want it to be Tom Theisman or Eloise Pritchart, I would love to see what happens if Sorrow Singer and Alfred Harrington turn up in the same room... perhaps, perhaps, perhaps?

Actually, "trauma bonding's" rather the exception than the rule. Samantha didn't bond with Harold Shu (or Hamish Alexander) traumatically. Survivor didn't bond traumatically with Karl Zivonik; Ariel didn't bond traumatically with Elizabeth; Murdock didn't bond traumatically with King Roger (although he did later with Justin Zyr); and, in fact, none of the monarch-treecat bonds has been traumatic (even the one between Princess Airenne and Seeker of Dreams had already bonded before the assassination attempt). Neither Farragut's bond with Miranda LaFollet nor Hipper's bond with Rachel were traumatic, etc., etc. For that matter, I'd argue that Honor's bond with Nimitz wasn't really "traumatic," in that it occurred only in the aftermath of the trauma. And the very first bonding of all --- Stephanie and Climbs Quickly --- had actually taken place long before the fight with the hexapuma. The bond was what brought CQ to fight the hexapuma. not the other way around.

Now, it's entirely fair to say that extreme emotion certainly helps to create bonds between humans and 'cats. And the 'cats are often drawn to humans who are dealing with grief or trauma because of the way in which those situations enhance the mind-glow. But the vast majority of bondings are definitely not "trauma based."

As for Alfred and Allison, the people who have observed that they had already bonded before she was kidnapped are perfectly correct. Without that, Alfred couldn't have tracked her. Now, did the trauma of her torture, his rescue of her, and their fight to survive strengthen their bond? Oh, my, yes! And while I hate to discourage rampant speculation, the strength of their bond is the real reason neither of them was ever adopted by a treecat. They've each already filled the "bonding slot" (for want of a better term) in the other's mind-glow. In every way that counts, the two of them are a bonded pair of treecats who just got shortchanged on the number of legs they were issued.

And, finally, for people who have observed that Alfred is 19" taller than Allison --- a point which has been, ah . . . alluded to in the books more than once --- I would simply point out that I am roughly 15.5" taller than Sharon, and Peter Mayhew (who's a foot taller than I am) is married to a really wonderful lady named Angie Luker who's about the same height Sharon is.

Just sayin' . . . .

runsforcelery wrote:

roseandheather wrote:
On the one hand, the 'trauma bonding' is an Honorverse trope that can only show up so many times, I think.

On the other hand, there was a lot of trauma going around after Oyster Bay.

And while I admit that if we're going to see another treecat bonding I really want it to be Tom Theisman or Eloise Pritchart, I would love to see what happens if Sorrow Singer and Alfred Harrington turn up in the same room... perhaps, perhaps, perhaps?

Actually, "trauma bonding's" rather the exception than the rule. Samantha didn't bond with Harold Shu (or Hamish Alexander) traumatically. Survivor didn't bond traumatically with Karl Zivonik; Ariel didn't bond traumatically with Elizabeth; Murdock didn't bond traumatically with King Roger (although he did later with Justin Zyr); and, in fact, none of the monarch-treecat bonds has been traumatic (even the one between Princess Airenne and Seeker of Dreams had already bonded before the assassination attempt). Neither Farragut's bond with Miranda LaFollet nor Hipper's bond with Rachel were traumatic, etc., etc. For that matter, I'd argue that Honor's bond with Nimitz wasn't really "traumatic," in that it occurred only in the aftermath of the trauma. And the very first bonding of all --- Stephanie and Climbs Quickly --- had actually taken place long before the fight with the hexapuma. The bond was what brought CQ to fight the hexapuma. not the other way around.

Now, it's entirely fair to say that extreme emotion certainly helps to create bonds between humans and 'cats. And the 'cats are often drawn to humans who are dealing with grief or trauma because of the way in which those situations enhance the mind-glow. But the vast majority of bondings are definitely not "trauma based."

As for Alfred and Allison, the people who have observed that they had already bonded before she was kidnapped are perfectly correct. Without that, Alfred couldn't have tracked her. Now, did the trauma of her torture, his rescue of her, and their fight to survive strengthen their bond? Oh, my, yes! And while I hate to discourage rampant speculation, the strength of their bond is the real reason neither of them was ever adopted by a treecat. They've each already filled the "bonding slot" (for want of a better term) in the other's mind-glow. In every way that counts, the two of them are a bonded pair of treecats who just got shortchanged on the number of legs they were issued.

And, finally, for people who have observed that Alfred is 19" taller than Allison --- a point which has been, ah . . . alluded to in the books more than once --- I would simply point out that I am roughly 15.5" taller than Sharon, and Peter Mayhew (who's a foot taller than I am) is married to a really wonderful lady named Angie Luker who's about the same height Sharon is.

Just sayin' . . . .

*fights urge to hide under the bed*

*carefully picks jaw up off floor*

I need to stop doing words when I'm tired. What I was trying to say wasn't that trauma-bonding in itself was overused, per se - the only one we've had is Hamish and Samantha, as far as I can recall, at least onscreen - but because they're so rare, as you pointed out, RFC, if we suddenly have a wave of half a dozen trauma bondings in the next few books - not that I think we will - readers are going to start going "uh huh, sure, that's rare all right, whatever you say".

I refer you to Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar universe (which I love, for the record), which in early books told everyone how rare lifebondings were and then proceeded to give half the main characters lifebonds. If it's rare in the fictional universe, which it so far has been established to be, we shouldn't be seeing a whole whack of them "onscreen", as it were. Which is why I was skeptical of the idea of a lot of trauma-triggered bonds post Oyster Bay, because it would have broken that rule.

*wipes forehead* There. I think I said it properly this time.

In other news, I'm quietly thrilled that my private little theory about Alfred and Allison being basically a mated pair of treecats was actually right.

Now, if, hypothetically, we hypothetically got Sorrow Singer and Eloise "Lost the love of my life in horribly traumatic fashion" Pritchart in the same room... hypothetically speaking, I wonder what the result of that would be?

roseandheather wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:Actually, "trauma bonding's" rather the exception than the rule. Samantha didn't bond with Harold Shu (or Hamish Alexander) traumatically. Survivor didn't bond traumatically with Karl Zivonik; Ariel didn't bond traumatically with Elizabeth; Murdock didn't bond traumatically with King Roger (although he did later with Justin Zyr); and, in fact, none of the monarch-treecat bonds has been traumatic (even the one between Princess Airenne and Seeker of Dreams had already bonded before the assassination attempt). Neither Farragut's bond with Miranda LaFollet nor Hipper's bond with Rachel were traumatic, etc., etc. For that matter, I'd argue that Honor's bond with Nimitz wasn't really "traumatic," in that it occurred only in the aftermath of the trauma. And the very first bonding of all --- Stephanie and Climbs Quickly --- had actually taken place long before the fight with the hexapuma. The bond was what brought CQ to fight the hexapuma. not the other way around.

Now, it's entirely fair to say that extreme emotion certainly helps to create bonds between humans and 'cats. And the 'cats are often drawn to humans who are dealing with grief or trauma because of the way in which those situations enhance the mind-glow. But the vast majority of bondings are definitely not "trauma based."

As for Alfred and Allison, the people who have observed that they had already bonded before she was kidnapped are perfectly correct. Without that, Alfred couldn't have tracked her. Now, did the trauma of her torture, his rescue of her, and their fight to survive strengthen their bond? Oh, my, yes! And while I hate to discourage rampant speculation, the strength of their bond is the real reason neither of them was ever adopted by a treecat. They've each already filled the "bonding slot" (for want of a better term) in the other's mind-glow. In every way that counts, the two of them are a bonded pair of treecats who just got shortchanged on the number of legs they were issued.

And, finally, for people who have observed that Alfred is 19" taller than Allison --- a point which has been, ah . . . alluded to in the books more than once --- I would simply point out that I am roughly 15.5" taller than Sharon, and Peter Mayhew (who's a foot taller than I am) is married to a really wonderful lady named Angie Luker who's about the same height Sharon is.

Just sayin' . . . .

*fights urge to hide under the bed*

*carefully picks jaw up off floor*

I need to stop doing words when I'm tired. What I was trying to say wasn't that trauma-bonding in itself was overused, per se - the only one we've had is Hamish and Samantha, as far as I can recall, at least onscreen - but because they're so rare, as you pointed out, RFC, if we suddenly have a wave of half a dozen trauma bondings in the next few books - not that I think we will - readers are going to start going "uh huh, sure, that's rare all right, whatever you say".

I refer you to Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar universe (which I love, for the record), which in early books told everyone how rare lifebondings were and then proceeded to give half the main characters lifebonds. If it's rare in the fictional universe, which it so far has been established to be, we shouldn't be seeing a whole whack of them "onscreen", as it were. Which is why I was skeptical of the idea of a lot of trauma-triggered bonds post Oyster Bay, because it would have broken that rule.

*wipes forehead* There. I think I said it properly this time.

In other news, I'm quietly thrilled that my private little theory about Alfred and Allison being basically a mated pair of treecats was actually right.

Now, if, hypothetically, we hypothetically got Sorrow Singer and Eloise "Lost the love of my life in horribly traumatic fashion" Pritchart in the same room... hypothetically speaking, I wonder what the result of that would be?

No problem. I didn't mean to imply that you were saying traumas were the only ways people could bond. In fact, I was agreeing with you in that regard. And as someone who happens to be another Misty Lackey fan, I understand exactly what you're saying about life bondings in Valdemar. Although (as she pointed out to me in a conversation at a con one upon a time) if you stacked every single life bonded person in the Valdemar books up in one place, they'd be a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy percentage of the entire population of the planet. So they're still rarer than hens' teeth. So there!

You did put your finger on the focusing effect that traumatic experiences can have, however, and there are plenty of cases in which treecats have bonded (or will bond) to certain human beings specifically because those particular two-legs have experienced a sort of . . . refining process, I suppose, from having had to deal with traumatic emotions and events. For an example, we can go back to Karl and Keen Eyes once more, or to the depth of the mind-glow which drew Seeker of Dreams to Adrienne in the first place. I am not about to tell you (for obvious, if somewhat snerky, reasons) whether any of the names on various people's wish lists will actually be adopted, but it certainly could happen.

One thing that definitely will be happening now that the 'cats have come out of the bag (so to speak), however, will be a great expansion in human-treecat friendships and working (as opposed to adoption) relationships. As the treecats are more and more firmly integrated into human society adoption bonds will probably become more common, simply because there will be so many more opportunities for them, but the 'cats who would have bonded to humans under any circumstances have always been a distinct (and small) minority of the total number of treecats in existence. And while this has never been specifically stated in any of the stories, they've also always been among the most innovative treecats. The 'cats are much less inherently inventive and innovative than humans, and the ones who adopt possess a very rare combination of a mind-glow with a high degree of natural strength and . . . perceptual sensitivity backed up by an ability to visualize and conceptualize new concepts and ideas which is considerably above the treecat norm. They are, if you will, very rare statistical outliers, so it's unlikely that the adoption rate will climb in direct proportion to the increased chances of treecat-human contact now that the 'cats are openly joining the Grand Alliance.

runsforcelery wrote:
[Snip]

Murdock didn't bond traumatically with King Roger (although he did later with Justin Zyr)

[Snip]

Ugh Murdock? Monroe IIRC.

Poker

runsforcelery wrote:And while this has never been specifically stated in any of the stories, they've also always been among the most innovative treecats. The 'cats are much less inherently inventive and innovative than humans, and the ones who adopt possess a very rare combination of a mind-glow with a high degree of natural strength and . . . perceptual sensitivity backed up by an ability to visualize and conceptualize new concepts and ideas which is considerably above the treecat norm.

Which is interesting due to comments that treecats bonded to humans rarely have children.

All this just makes Baby Raoul a ticking plot time bomb...the son of the human race's only genuine full empath and grandson of at least one semi-empath, raised from birth surrounded by treecats and treekittens...

RFC wrote
snip
Survivor didn't bond traumatically with Karl Zivonik
Snip

Que?

Which book/story did that happen in?

The only one I don't have (I think) is the Honorverse Companion, so I presume it must be in that.

T&R
egroeG

runsforcelery wrote:Snip

As for Alfred and Allison, the people who have observed that they had already bonded before she was kidnapped are perfectly correct. Without that, Alfred couldn't have tracked her. Now, did the trauma of her torture, his rescue of her, and their fight to survive strengthen their bond? Oh, my, yes! And while I hate to discourage rampant speculation, the strength of their bond is the real reason neither of them was ever adopted by a treecat. They've each already filled the "bonding slot" (for want of a better term) in the other's mind-glow. In every way that counts, the two of them are a bonded pair of treecats who just got shortchanged on the number of legs they were issued.

snip

Thanks for the post, David.

Interesting. As I recall Nimitz has bonded Samantha and Honor. Do treecats have 2 slots and humans only 1? Or perhaps is there wiggle room for a second bond if it the first involves a cat and human mixed bond? Perhaps a sufficiently powerful emotional experience might make the second bond possible? Perhaps there is a mind voice bonding slot and a mind glow bonding slot?

Thanks in advance for considering these questions.

George J. Smith wrote:RFC wrote
snip
Survivor didn't bond traumatically with Karl Zivonik
Snip

Que?

Which book/story did that happen in?

The only one I don't have (I think) is the Honorverse Companion, so I presume it must be in that.

T&R
egroeG

That would be Treecat Wars by DW and Jane Lindskold, the third book of the Young Adult Stephanie Harrington/treecat series. The first two are A Beautiful Friendship (all three by DW and JL, and the first is just an expanded version of the same story in one of the anthologies, where you get the story of Stephanie being the discoverer of and first human to bond to, treecats), and the second book is Fire Season.

Edit: There's only one story in The Companion, and that is I Will Build My House of Steel, about King Roger's attempts to start the military buildup prior to the first Manticore/Haven war. The rest of the book is background history and military and political organization of the SKM and Grayson, and tech specs for ships for both star nations.