I have recently reread the whole series, and, in doing so, I was really annoyed by something.

Throughout the series, it seemed that all the other races of Carna had a complete and utter moral high ground on Alera. The reasons for this where, in my opinion, fairly stupid. While I acknowledge that slavery and in-fighting are important issues, both the Marat and Canim in-fight. The Icemen may to, but we know relatively little about them. In addition:

The Marat make a point of eating their enemies and each other, sometimes (even often) alive. In addition, it was stated in the first book that the reason the Aleran's knew little about them was because they ate everybody sent to them.

The Canim make a point of being upset by the killing of innocents in the fourth book, despite the fact that their first action upon arriving in Alera was to rampage across the countryside, killing innocents. In addition, it has been shown to be common for the Ritualists to kill other Cane in order to power their spells, and to be allowed to do so. They also seem to not mind the fact that they send thousands of maker caste Cane to their deaths every battle, who have been described as being drafted (more or less).

The Icemen we know little of, but seem to give themselves on a moral high ground since the Alerans sent no 'peace-chief', despite the fact that they apparently hadn't either. In addition, in the fifth book, they attacked a town of innocents, and would of killed the town if not for the fact that the local Legion was allowed to take their swords upon retirement.

Despite all of this, in most of their inconters with Alera, they have the moral high-ground.

Was anyone else bothered by this?

 

You're not the only one.

Though, in some cases it's probably not a case of a race being shown as being 'morally superior' to Alerans, so much as that race's subjective view of Alerans... (In such a case, it's pretty much expected that one side would demonize the other side. It doesn't make their accusations or viewpoint right or justified however.) But even so, it does seem to go beyond "other countries/races insulting Aleran weakpoints" and into "these guys are better then the Alerans" preaching... a lot..

 

I don't know there is some point in this. First off the canim did not kill innocents if your read carefully they killed only those that opposes them and captured the rest. Second the in-fighting is not what the canim and the marat look down on it is the betrayal. The Marat don't lie and the canim warrior class has a strict honor code. The slavery issue is pretty clear a moral down point for the Alereans that no other race has. And both the killing for the blood for the Canim and the Killing alive for the Marat is a way of honoring the enemy. Yeah it seems disgusting but not necessarily wrong.

 

I am pro canibalism too. Hannibal for president.


But yeah, I've noticed things like the moral highground other races have throughout the series. Another one is for Jim to completely ignore a character for a book or so. Which, usually isn't bad, it is in this series because each book skips a couple years at a time. I am re-reading now just to figure out what has happened to the First Lord's wife, she was meant to be a traitor and yet we haven't heard from her for a couple books (so I think), which is about 5 years? Surely something would of happened by now.


Still, only found this series about a week ago, now that I really looked. A good little gem.

 

Might want to edit that for spoilers. I don't think he's read that far since he said he just got the series a week ago.

 

One sentence in response to the opening post.

The Canim were fighting for their lives. They had nowhere to go, the phrase 'at any cost' comes to mind. They were fighting to survive as a species, whereas the Alerans were desecrating their own in relative comfort.

 

I've only finished book 4, the library doesn't have 5 and 6 and I'm to povo to go buy 5 and 6 myself. But I don't mind spoilers, never really mattered to me what ends up happening, as long as it is a good read along the way.

Also waiting for Dresden Files to be returned, so I can start on that.

 

Slavery was accepted in Roman soceity, and it is not inheribly wrong as such. It can however be quite inefficient at plantation for example (lack of incentive).

What I find annoying is that none of the "heroes" seem to accept it. It is a feature of the soceity in which they have been raised, they do not necessarily have to like it, but they should at least accept it.
The author lacks the guts to make his characters consistent, a common feature but a bit disappointing.

I do not kill any innocents, only those who oppose me...

Flaying your enemies alive is also pretty digusting, cruel and easily missinterpreted. But since it is a way of honoring them...

 

The Marat and Canim and Icemen characters are all quick to point out their moral high ground because they lost. 'We may have lost, but we have the moral high ground'. The Icemen are held back completely by the wall. The Marat have tried on several occasions to fight their way into Aleran turf and have never gotten further than Calderon Valley. The Canim, the most successful of the enemies of Alera, get wiped by the Vord and are forced to pick up everything they own and flee whimpering to Alera, where they try to carve themselves off a piece of turf and get their ass whooped by a furyless boy in disguise and a green legion that's more of a political gesture than a combat force.

Alerans could easily make all sorts of moral arguments as to why they're better than the other factions, but why the fuck should they? They've got a fuckhuge empire, they wiped out or pushed back all their enemies, and their legions can and do conquer all. And they know they're morally superior, and don't give a fuck about what the other factions think.

As for slavery, it was commonplace in Rome, but Alera wasn't born of Rome, it was born of a Roman legion. And the people being enslaved aren't subjugated peoples, as they tended to be in Rome, they're other Alerans, and they're enslaved via mind control. Whole different kettle of fish.

 

While it is true that most Roman slaves where enslaved through war this is not the case of al of them. There where several ways that you could become a slave, you could be sold by your father, you could sell yourself, you could fail to pay your debts, you could commit certain crimes, your mother could be a slave, etc.
You could also become freed, through hard work (a slave was owed 5 % of the value fo the work he performed. it took about seven years to earn enough to buy your freedom) or you could be freed through a testament or beacasue of some celebration or similar.
Though of those those collars did not exists in Rome, their use would make the manumission of slaves complicated to say the least.

However since slavery is so widespread in Alera it has to be accepted by the citizens of the country. Therefore the maincharacters do not conform to the social norms of their soceity.

 

Of the main characters, the real movers and shakers - Tavi, Bernard, and Isana - are from the Calderon Valley, which is a very different social clime compared to that of the mainstream city-dwelling citizens. The slaves aren't collared and tend to be treated well, and undoubtedly the children are free as the law dictates instead of maneuvered into slavery via debt or indenture. Compare that to Kalare's brainwashing and brutality and you've got a solid reason for them to be against mainstream slavery. Then, if Isana and Bernard tend towards anti-slavery, Tavi would be the same way via his upbringing, and later on Amara would take her political cues from Bernard and practically everyone would take theirs from Tavi after he came into his own - especially once the Free Alerans became a political point.

Though it does seem that the Dianic League is perhaps overly liberal or ambitious in it's purview, where it would more realistically be trying to outlaw the slave collars and make the laws that make a child of a slave free more sticking and harder to bypass, it's hinted that the true purpose behind it isn't liberalism, but subtle economic warfare aimed at breaking the economy of Kalare, which is heavily reliant on slave labour to tend it's farmlands - especially since Kalarus is sinking all the money he gets from it into his bid for the crown.

You may remember that the major mover and shaker of the Dianic League is Lady motherfucking Aquitaine. Does she seem the sort to be an abolitionist for the good of the poor slaves?

 

But I'm not really saying that thay have a bad reason to be against slavery, I am saying that I would like to have seen the "heroes" be accepting of slavery, since that would have been a daring and quite original move by the author.

 

(I use the term hero in this text in the context that the person is someone the reader considers just, this is therefore not interchangeable with main character)

What I am saying is that in a society that accepts slavery, the social norm is to accept slavery. To not have the heroes accept it, is in my opinion partly done because the author tries to make his characters conform as much as possible to the readers moral standards. This is done because it makes it easier for the heroes to be heroes since what the reader deems heroic is partly dependent upon his or her moral standards.

Since this behavior is abnormal but shared by the reader and the heroes it includes the reader in the group of heroes, allowing the reader to more easily identify himself with them (since a common divide exists between the heroes and their society and the reader and the heroes society). Observe that it is almost always the case that the uncommon behavior comforms to the readers moral standards and not the opposite eg. a uncommon behavior (that the main character rationally supports) that does not comform with the readers moral standards. Usually some reason for this uncommon behavior is created by the author, this reason can of course be quite good.

This is done by the author with a very specific reason in mind and I consider it a bit cheap by the author. It would in my opinion be more daring to not use this trick, and not have the main characters be quite so "clean".

 

Because, of course, all of Alera conforms to the same societal norms, and the characters from Calderon Valley not conforming to the societal standards found in Kalare's slave markets are the author taking the safe route, and not the normal moral variations found within any and every society, right?

And it's not like Bernardholt owned a slave at all, is it?

 

Yes, if we can talk about Alera as a society then it must conform to certain common norms. Considering how Alera apperantly was founded by a lost roman legion (or perhaps two legions) from some time after the Marian reforms I find it far more likely for acceptance of slavery to be the norm then for it to not be the norm.

Concerning Fade being a slave, I think you will have to agree that enslavement is not a particular apt description of that relationship (exept possibly of a man to duty).

 

I just finished book 2 and have books 3 and 4 lying next to me but there is one point I am curious about. It is not much of an annoyance as it is weird but maybe it will be explained in the later books, if so, no need to further explain:

I get why in our world, woman were looked down to, it is not that logical but you can see where they are coming from, being mostly (in earlier times) weaker in combat and all that (as one of the reasons). But here, this is not really the case. A female furycrafter is as dangerous as a male one and gender does not really give an advantage one way or another, so why are females looked down to too? I mean, shouldn't they be equal. in society I mean?

May be a stupid question but it kind of seemed weird to me.

Also thanks to the forum for bringing Jim Butcher to my attention.

 

Spoiler warnings ahoy, except for the last paragraph, which is directed at Nemrut.

Except for the fact that he was literally a fucking slave. That is his legal status. He was "one bound in servitude as the property of a person or household", which is the motherfucking definition. Why are you even trying to argue that point?

And you're talking about Alera like it's one big ol' stagnant monocultural pillar, where everyone everywhere thinks the same and Tavi and co not conforming this is a sign of Jim Butcher being too fucking cowardly to have a main character that is a-okay with slavery.

Let me repeat the point I've been trying to drum into your head - Tavi is not against slavery as it existed in the Roman Empire. He is against slavery as it existed in Kalarus, ie, you're a slave forever, your children will be too (and the lasses will have lots of them because of, y'know, all the rape), and just to make sure THERE'S A HUGE FUCK-OFF COLLAR ON YOUR NECK THAT WILL TURN YOUR WORLD INTO A REALM OF PAIN IF YOU EVEN FUCKING THINK OF DISOBEYING, AND THIS WILL TURN YOU INTO A MINDLESS, SOULLESS DRONE.

Did you miss the part where Gaius Sextus dropped a motherfucking volcano on top of Kalarus because Kalare was the most evil fucker in the entire Aleran race?

How about the part where Gaius Octavian took an abolitionist slant because it was politically expedient to do so, what with the Aleran Free Legions being a major sticking point in the Aleran-Canim relations?

How Isana only threw her lot in with the Dianic League because the one pulling the strings, Lady Evil Bitch Aquitaine (who is only in the abolition business because the person who profits most from slavery is her main competition for the throne), promised to protect Isana's family?

How about the point where Bernardholt owned a fucking slave?

Any of this ringing a fucking bell, or are you too caught up in your "Jim Butcher is a fucking pussy because his characters aren't hardcore enough to be pro-slavery" bitchfest?

And to Nemrut: women are, assumably, just as good with the furies as guys are, but not as good at the whole Legionnaire double time on half rations, sword drills until your arm falls off thing. And seeing the Legions are the key to Aleran supremacy... yeah.

 

I wrote that I found it annoying that his characters where (in my opinion) inconsistent with the setting. In no way did I express myself in the terms you describe. The closest I came was to say that it would have been more daring of Jim Butcher to not have his heroes quite as much modern moral standards.

While Tavi is against slavery in general I do not think the the version of slavery that he is against is described in detail. I am however not certain, if there is such a passage in Codex Alera please point it out to me.

I have not described Alera as stagnant, neither have I said that everyone in Alera thinks the same. I have instead said that i find the lack of conformity annoying.

I have read this passage, is it relevant?

Yes it certainly was politically expedient. However there is also a passage describing Tavi destroying the sets of iron he finds in the hold of the Slive, something that certainly was not expedient.