![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mdfification posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
blueheronteanookTitle: Statism, Canadian Political Culture, and Pale
Rating: Everyone
Major Warnings: None (Minor references to racism)
Genre: Meta post
Summary: Pale is in dialogue with Canadian political culture, which is, as in all countries, unique. This post goes into a few tendencies in Canadian society regarding how the state is viewed and how Pale approaches these topics.
Before I make this case, I think it's best to clarify how I came to believe the things I'm going to say about Canada's political culture. I am a historian specializing in the history of 19th century Ontario. Most of what I am going to say about the nature and origins of Canada's political culture are my own thoughts, but have been influenced by reading a large variety of works on the history of that time period. I doubt I remember everything that has inspired me, but the following works were on my desk when I wrote what would eventually become this post:
------
One of the common criticisms I saw people make of Pale towards the end was that the trio was "selling out". That is to say, the trio shifted from being almost purely confrontational towards establishment practitioners to being willing to make some concessions, provided they were essentially willing to participate in joint rule of Ontario via the alliance network, the Sword Moot, etc.
Anyways, this gives me a good excuse to talk about something near and dear to me, the authoritarian or more accurately statist tradition in Canadian culture! For those not in the know, Canada is not America. The fact that most of us speak the same language, dress the same and eat similar foods makes it difficult for people to grok this, but Canada's political history has been wildly different than America, and as a result we've developed different prevailing cultural sentiments surrounding politics. Pale is a very political work, and Wildbow is a very Canadian boar. This makes it worth exploring the ways in which Canada's political tradition is distinct, because the authors intentions and the audiences reaction to various things will not always line up.
Canada is, I would argue, a very conservative state. This is confusing to many people, because "conservative" and "right wing" are different things in polisci. English speaking Canada's population was largely created by a process of immigrants self-sorting based on their politics. Essentially, if someone was a big fan of radical, revolutionary politics (in the 1800s, that's what American democracy was) and they'd moved to Canada, they usually moved south. If someone in the States was disgruntled with laze-faire capitalism, political instability or a degree of partistanship America is only just now rediscovering (Americans often overstate how divisive their politics are today compared to what they were in the 1800s, when y'all killed each other over them alarming frequently) they typically moved from America to Canada. This shaped both cultures, but for the sake of this thread, the important thing was that Canadians became biased towards statism - the tendency to downplay problems the state creates while viewing state action as the ideal solution for a wide variety of social problems.
An important cultural division between Anglo-Canadians and Americans is how they conceive rights and liberties. Americans typically view these things as just existing, as if by natural law, and the primary threat to these coming from politicians or state institutions. Canadians though tend to view it the other way around. Canadians tend to view rights and liberties as being created by their governing institutions, and often imagine the threat to their rights and liberties as coming from other members of the public. This is reflected in the structures Canada has erected to protect Canadians rights. In modern Canada, we have these very powerful human rights tribunals who can intervene if your rights are infringed by a member of the public. But we have very poor defenses against the government infringing your rights. Our equivalent of the American bill of rights (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) contains two ways to let the government off the hook if it violates your rights. The first is a legal test to see if the violation should be exempted, and a good part of that test is subjective, so it depends on the judge. The other mechanism is called the Notwithstanding Clause and it lets the government just violate the Charter if they say they want to. You might point out that these tools give the government immense power to stop Canadians from denying other Canadians their rights while giving Canadians few ways to protect themselves from government infringement of said rights - and I agree, that's a big problem. Despite how we may feel about it though, these structures were created by Canadians and accepted by the Canadian public and are a product of longstanding attitudes.
There are historical reasons for how we got here. The Canadian state is not the product of a successful liberal revolution. Canadian society was consciously designed by an unaccountable elite (often not even physically present in the country) and imposed through leveraging fears of absorption into the United States. Canada did not abolish slavery; the British-appointed elite abolished slavery regardless of the wishes of Canadians (it's a dirty secret that our pseudo-democratic institutions of the time voted to keep it). In the early history of the Canadian system, marginalized peoples primary fear was that Canada would become a democracy. This is because they accurately gauged that the average Canadian was just as much of a quasi-genocidal white supremacist as the average American was in the 1800s, and given the chance would vote accordingly. For much of Canada's early history, the route through which people could ensure their rights were protected was through political patronage.
This is to say, protestors storming legislatures did not give Canadians rights. The way Canadians acquired and kept their rights in the early 1800s was through establishing a relationship with a powerful government elite, and having said elite use their control of governing institutions in their favor. The use of these fundamentally authoritarian networks of privilege was how racialized Canadians or religious minorities protected themselves from a hostile public, and Canada's democratization and slow decolonization in the late 1800s/early 1900s actually proved disastrous for Canada's minorities. The more power was taken out of the hands of the British and their local elite supporters, the more power was wielded by the Canadian public - the majority of which were pretty darn intolerant and unafraid to use their majority against their neighbours. Over the course of the 1800s, First Nations and Black Canadians went from being vital participants in securing the state (with all the political connections to the ruling class that came with it) to increasingly victims of, rather than drivers of, national politics. This vindicates these communities great efforts to keep American-style democracy from taking root in the province in the conflicts of 1812 and 1837 - precisely what they feared about democracy came to pass.
So, how does this relate to Pale? The trio joining or creating what passes for government in Pale is not, in the context of Canadian political culture, a way to show they're losing touch with marginalized people and joining the club of tyrants. Instead, it's probably intended to be understood as the replacement of bad elites with good elites.
The threat to Others, women, children, or any other vulnerable group in Pale does not come from 'above' - although the threat that the Bad Men might become the governing institution is frequently raised. Instead it comes from what is often presented as the dominant grouping of the public. The "practitioner establishment" is, in terms of how many named characters we got and the way the plot handles them, depicted as the majority in Pale's magical community. They could be interpreted (and I think should be) as the populist threat against minority populations, the solution to which is the empowerment of Good Elites (the trio) through governing institutions (the Sword Moot and Kennet's sphere of influence). The problem is practitioner bigotry, but also their freedom to act as they see fit; the solution is an alliance of right-thinking council based governments, the establishment of a Sword Moot to serve as regional legislature, and replacement of unacceptable elites such as the Alabaster with hand-picked, morally acceptable replacements. Peace, order and good government follow.
The tl;dr is I don't think the trio adopting the trappings of government means they are intended to be portrayed as less progressive or less good for their society. Pale is participating in a long Canadian political tradition; it is proposing that the solution to our social problems is more enlightened and more active government. A better conversation to have might be, are the trio and their successors (because inevitably, different people will be picking up the reins of these institutions in the future) adequately constrained in their action? What is there to stop a future practitioner leader from using these structures against the vulnerable? Canadians, as they come to reckon with the realities of what unaccountable government action has done to the marginalized, are increasingly asking these questions about our society.
This post was largely compiled from discussions had on the Tea Nook's Discord; if anyone would like to discuss these things will me in real time, you can find me there.
Rating: Everyone
Major Warnings: None (Minor references to racism)
Genre: Meta post
Summary: Pale is in dialogue with Canadian political culture, which is, as in all countries, unique. This post goes into a few tendencies in Canadian society regarding how the state is viewed and how Pale approaches these topics.
Before I make this case, I think it's best to clarify how I came to believe the things I'm going to say about Canada's political culture. I am a historian specializing in the history of 19th century Ontario. Most of what I am going to say about the nature and origins of Canada's political culture are my own thoughts, but have been influenced by reading a large variety of works on the history of that time period. I doubt I remember everything that has inspired me, but the following works were on my desk when I wrote what would eventually become this post:
- The Civil War of 1812 by Alan Taylor
- Dixie and the Dominion by Adam Mayers
- The Journey from Tollgate to Parkway by Adrienne Shadd
- The Life and Times of WM. Lyon Mackenzie and the Rebellion of 1837-38 by Charles Lindsey
- A Mohawk Memoir from the War of 1812 by John Norton (Teyoninhokarawen)
- Rebellion: The Rising in French Canada 1837 by Joseph Schull
- Revolutions Across Borders: Jacksonian America and the Canadian Rebellion by Maxime Dagenais and Julien Mauduit
------
One of the common criticisms I saw people make of Pale towards the end was that the trio was "selling out". That is to say, the trio shifted from being almost purely confrontational towards establishment practitioners to being willing to make some concessions, provided they were essentially willing to participate in joint rule of Ontario via the alliance network, the Sword Moot, etc.
Anyways, this gives me a good excuse to talk about something near and dear to me, the authoritarian or more accurately statist tradition in Canadian culture! For those not in the know, Canada is not America. The fact that most of us speak the same language, dress the same and eat similar foods makes it difficult for people to grok this, but Canada's political history has been wildly different than America, and as a result we've developed different prevailing cultural sentiments surrounding politics. Pale is a very political work, and Wildbow is a very Canadian boar. This makes it worth exploring the ways in which Canada's political tradition is distinct, because the authors intentions and the audiences reaction to various things will not always line up.
Canada is, I would argue, a very conservative state. This is confusing to many people, because "conservative" and "right wing" are different things in polisci. English speaking Canada's population was largely created by a process of immigrants self-sorting based on their politics. Essentially, if someone was a big fan of radical, revolutionary politics (in the 1800s, that's what American democracy was) and they'd moved to Canada, they usually moved south. If someone in the States was disgruntled with laze-faire capitalism, political instability or a degree of partistanship America is only just now rediscovering (Americans often overstate how divisive their politics are today compared to what they were in the 1800s, when y'all killed each other over them alarming frequently) they typically moved from America to Canada. This shaped both cultures, but for the sake of this thread, the important thing was that Canadians became biased towards statism - the tendency to downplay problems the state creates while viewing state action as the ideal solution for a wide variety of social problems.
An important cultural division between Anglo-Canadians and Americans is how they conceive rights and liberties. Americans typically view these things as just existing, as if by natural law, and the primary threat to these coming from politicians or state institutions. Canadians though tend to view it the other way around. Canadians tend to view rights and liberties as being created by their governing institutions, and often imagine the threat to their rights and liberties as coming from other members of the public. This is reflected in the structures Canada has erected to protect Canadians rights. In modern Canada, we have these very powerful human rights tribunals who can intervene if your rights are infringed by a member of the public. But we have very poor defenses against the government infringing your rights. Our equivalent of the American bill of rights (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) contains two ways to let the government off the hook if it violates your rights. The first is a legal test to see if the violation should be exempted, and a good part of that test is subjective, so it depends on the judge. The other mechanism is called the Notwithstanding Clause and it lets the government just violate the Charter if they say they want to. You might point out that these tools give the government immense power to stop Canadians from denying other Canadians their rights while giving Canadians few ways to protect themselves from government infringement of said rights - and I agree, that's a big problem. Despite how we may feel about it though, these structures were created by Canadians and accepted by the Canadian public and are a product of longstanding attitudes.
There are historical reasons for how we got here. The Canadian state is not the product of a successful liberal revolution. Canadian society was consciously designed by an unaccountable elite (often not even physically present in the country) and imposed through leveraging fears of absorption into the United States. Canada did not abolish slavery; the British-appointed elite abolished slavery regardless of the wishes of Canadians (it's a dirty secret that our pseudo-democratic institutions of the time voted to keep it). In the early history of the Canadian system, marginalized peoples primary fear was that Canada would become a democracy. This is because they accurately gauged that the average Canadian was just as much of a quasi-genocidal white supremacist as the average American was in the 1800s, and given the chance would vote accordingly. For much of Canada's early history, the route through which people could ensure their rights were protected was through political patronage.
This is to say, protestors storming legislatures did not give Canadians rights. The way Canadians acquired and kept their rights in the early 1800s was through establishing a relationship with a powerful government elite, and having said elite use their control of governing institutions in their favor. The use of these fundamentally authoritarian networks of privilege was how racialized Canadians or religious minorities protected themselves from a hostile public, and Canada's democratization and slow decolonization in the late 1800s/early 1900s actually proved disastrous for Canada's minorities. The more power was taken out of the hands of the British and their local elite supporters, the more power was wielded by the Canadian public - the majority of which were pretty darn intolerant and unafraid to use their majority against their neighbours. Over the course of the 1800s, First Nations and Black Canadians went from being vital participants in securing the state (with all the political connections to the ruling class that came with it) to increasingly victims of, rather than drivers of, national politics. This vindicates these communities great efforts to keep American-style democracy from taking root in the province in the conflicts of 1812 and 1837 - precisely what they feared about democracy came to pass.
So, how does this relate to Pale? The trio joining or creating what passes for government in Pale is not, in the context of Canadian political culture, a way to show they're losing touch with marginalized people and joining the club of tyrants. Instead, it's probably intended to be understood as the replacement of bad elites with good elites.
The threat to Others, women, children, or any other vulnerable group in Pale does not come from 'above' - although the threat that the Bad Men might become the governing institution is frequently raised. Instead it comes from what is often presented as the dominant grouping of the public. The "practitioner establishment" is, in terms of how many named characters we got and the way the plot handles them, depicted as the majority in Pale's magical community. They could be interpreted (and I think should be) as the populist threat against minority populations, the solution to which is the empowerment of Good Elites (the trio) through governing institutions (the Sword Moot and Kennet's sphere of influence). The problem is practitioner bigotry, but also their freedom to act as they see fit; the solution is an alliance of right-thinking council based governments, the establishment of a Sword Moot to serve as regional legislature, and replacement of unacceptable elites such as the Alabaster with hand-picked, morally acceptable replacements. Peace, order and good government follow.
The tl;dr is I don't think the trio adopting the trappings of government means they are intended to be portrayed as less progressive or less good for their society. Pale is participating in a long Canadian political tradition; it is proposing that the solution to our social problems is more enlightened and more active government. A better conversation to have might be, are the trio and their successors (because inevitably, different people will be picking up the reins of these institutions in the future) adequately constrained in their action? What is there to stop a future practitioner leader from using these structures against the vulnerable? Canadians, as they come to reckon with the realities of what unaccountable government action has done to the marginalized, are increasingly asking these questions about our society.
This post was largely compiled from discussions had on the Tea Nook's Discord; if anyone would like to discuss these things will me in real time, you can find me there.
Thanks and Questions
Date: 2024-10-04 10:31 pm (UTC)This actually inspired some questions I was hoping you could answer, or point me in the right direction for learning more? (I'm ravenously curious about this stuff.) There is one thing which doesn't feel quite right to me though, but like ... I know I'm missing context, so I'd love to get your feedback on it because you clearly know a lot about this topic.
Questions first! You mentioned that Canadian minorities tended to secure rights via patronage with Canadian elites in the government whereas US minorities, when they did secure rights, did so with populist action in opposition to the government. However, neither government has ever been without government elites willing to make political deals. Do you have any thoughts on what therefore caused the absence of similar protective patronage in the US? Was the government comparatively weak/decentalized or more democratic from the get-go and therefore unable to provide it? Where US government officials simply more bigoted? Or was it that minority groups in the US were less organized and therefore less able to offer coherent behavior in exchange for patronage? (With enslaved Africans in particular, surely they would have had a difficult time unifying enough to offer something to political patrons?)
The thing I don't get:
More relevantly to Pale specifically, you call the trio (and associated Kennet Below warlords and influential council members as well I assume) political elites. That seems about right to be for their governance style, Kennet at the end of Pale is could really only be called a democracy in the aspirational sense.
But the Canadian government elites in the time period you're discussing presumably had external power bases and structures of support outside of their minority group political clients. This was a political elite whose authority and support were supplemented by minority political clients. They presumably *could* neglect minority needs and still remain in power (and did once they needed to cultivate popular support).
In the context of the Canadian government I can easily see the notional difference between "good elites" and "bad elites". The survival of a minority coalition in that environment has more to do with individual elite personality and private incentives of elites (which the minority coalitioncan influence) than structural incentives.
But Kennet isn't exactly advocating for the elevation of "good elites" within the broader Practioner community, its movement is rooted in secession and the installation of elites whose power is more closely tied to Others' as a population. There is no other population Kennet's elites could fall back on for a base of power and they are at least (for now) dependent on their approval to hold power.
From my American perspective, what I read this as was popular organizing. This was the minority group unifying under sometimes politically contentious compromise candidates for the sake of being able to punch the political system until it stopped trying to take their rights away (for now). I read this is very oppositional to the government, that rights come from organizing against the government rather than flowing from it.
But you've obviously got a rather different perspective on it, where the framing of Kennet's revolution is more about changing the character of the ruling elites to be more friendly to the minority groups. And I can see how that makes sense because they very much still are a system of political elites holding power and it's never been that much of a stretch for political elites to produce self reinforcing power structures which reduce their dependence on public approval.
So if I'm understanding this framework right, the fact that Kennet's elites depend on Other approval at all would be a function of them being "good" elites who aren't too power hungry. Charles obviously rooted his power base in similar secession and demographic concentration with radically different outcomes, which in this framework is because he was a "bad" elite. It's about elevating the right people from whom the protection of interests will flow.
And I realize I'm kind of rambling at this point, but my question is: Where do you see the breakdown between these perspectives? Why do you favor the perspective of Pale as being about the installation of good elites to a rights-giving government more than the popular organization of a demographic to make government endorsement of rights non-optional?
Because clearly there is a whole perspective on this I'm not familiar with. It simply hadn't occurred to me to see this as political patronage relationship with minority allied elites rather than an oppositional popular organizing movement, and there's obviously quite a bit of political history grounding the patronage perspective.
(Terribly sorry for the mess, I feel like I'm back in college and showing up a professor's office hours with the terrible sense that I'm not getting *something* in their lectures but don't even know how to phrase a proper question about it.)
Re: Thanks and Questions
Date: 2024-10-05 02:55 am (UTC)There are some unique dynamics in play when it comes to Canada in the early 1800s. Canada's ruling families (and they really were families at the time; the ruling oligarchies intermarried extensively) are themselves a minority group at odds with much of the population. In what becomes Quebec, they are largely English speaking, protestant merchants living amongst a conquered and disenfranchised French Catholic population. In what becomes Ontario, the ruling clique are mostly the descendants of loyalists from the American revolution, and practice Anglicanism - but the majority of the population, until the latter half of the 1800s, are economic immigrants from the states who practice Methodism (they're also being disenfranchised and oppressed). On top of this, the oligarchs live nextdoor to a vastly more populous nation ideologically opposed to their existence, that has invaded them twice within living memory - once during the Revolutionary War, and the second time during the War of 1812.
As a result, the ruling class in Canada sees the loyalty of minority communities as necessary to secure their continued existence. They are by no means less bigoted than American elites - it is the 1800s and they are colonialists with pretensions of aristocratic status. But they (correctly) identify that in the event of revolution or another breakout of hostility with the United States, their only hope of survival is to mobilize First Nations allies of Canada's growing population of African-American migrants. They are not their only sources of political support, but they're not as reliant on the ballot box as American elites are at this point anyway. Their fears about rebellion and invasion are realized in 1837, and the military support they were seeking among minority populations does end up being what saves them - only for the British to impose democratic reforms and dismantle the basis of the oligarchy's power anyway. Which to be clear I'm not super broken up about. I don't think anyone wants to go back to a Canada where we're openly discussing if we should develop an aristocracy on purpose, which was an actual political debate at the time.
In terms of 'good' elites vs 'bad' elites, the difference is that America's system of government was designed by believers in democracy. Canada's system of government is designed by believers in an ideology called Mixed Monarchy. Essentially, Britain had it's experiment with democracy before America tried theirs - it's called the English Civil War and it ended badly enough people are still arguing about whether things the opponents of the monarchy did constitute genocide. The conflict was caused by the increasing authoritarianism of the monarchy, but the radicalism of the republic that overturned it resulted in mass religious violence, pretty terrible governance, government dysfunction and ultimately the monarchy being brought back by many of the same people who'd shown in the door. Mixed Monarchy is the product of British people trying to learn the lessons of this conflict. What they conclude is basically that society is comprised of various different interest groups, and that the supremacy of any of these groups is going to end very poorly for the others. The solution they come up with is that the power of these groups needs to be balanced to ensure the Monarch, the Church, the Aristocracy and the Commons can't pursue their agendas unchecked. "Bad" leaders in this context aren't worse people, they're just less restrained, able and willing to strive for true dominance in this system (upsetting the balance and, according to the Mixed Monarchists, bringing the horrors of The Revolution back).
This ideology is no longer dominant in Canada, but there are lingering effects of it. There's this vague sentiment up here that majoritarianism or identifying too strongly with a given identity group is somehow sinister and foreign, with the politicians who lean too much into it actually suffering electoral pushback. It's what politicians in *those* countries do, and it puts a significant portion of the population off. A lot of people's ideal political leader up here isn't perfectly in touch with the will of the masses, but rather a person who is able to assure a wide variety of audiences that they're adequately sympathetic to them. The sentiment is reflected in political realities, with a person needing to be able to build coalitions in a very diverse country if they want to make it in politics. It's broadly understood in modern Canada that not being bilingual is electoral poison if you're aiming for the top. You can't be the Prime Minister if you can't find a Sikh willing to sit in your cabinet. Poor relations with First Nations communities have politically wounded not one but two Trudeaus. The trio are in this context leaning into people's biases - they're coalition builders, they're not identified too strongly with the group people in-universe would place them in, and so they feel vaguely safe and virtuous. The Bristows, Mussers and Charles' of the the story though, that are strongly identified with interests of the group they're identified with and ruthlessly pursuing them, do not come off this way. That's not how people's guts tell them things are supposed to be done here. They're alien, they're scary, they remind us most of bad things we've heard happening to other people, somewhere else. The trio supplanting them kind of feels like a return to the way Things Should Be rather than a radical change.
(If you got pinged twice my bad, I forgot to log in and posted this anonymously. Then deleted it because it made my IP address public.)
Re: Thanks and Questions
Date: 2024-10-05 05:15 am (UTC)So let me see if I've got this right, and please feel free to poke holes in this where I'm making leaps or if I've misread you.
The connection to the English Civil War helped ground the history for me. That's something I've got at least some grounding in and it helps me understand the system Canada's minority coalitions would have been dealing with. If they had a pseudo aristocracy that a) was designed to be internally balanced, b) had recent ideological reasons to maintain that balance and not go full tyranny, c) was afraid of both external invasion and internal populist unrest, I can see why such an anti-democratic system would have so vigorously defended minority rights to secure allies. And it makes sense why that would have fallen apart so drastically with the shift towards democracy: If minority rights weren't just being preserved against the grain of common opinion, but in part to counter the then-successful populist sentiments, and the last time a minority group seized the levers of power was freaking *Puritan control of England under Cromwell*...
It is unfortunately all too easy to picture resentment towards the privileged and difficult to assail ruling class being directed towards their vulnerable allies who form their power base. Especially when there's money and land and easy victims to be had by doing so. And it's easy to see how even as minority coalitions eventually recovered enough to have political lobbying power again, individual preferential treatment of specific coalitions would remain a toxic premise for everyone. Either as "the thing we righteously struck back against in the formation of our nation" or "the circumstances which drowned us in a hateful popular backlash and killed our struggle for equality for a century".
As for the modern side of things.
I'd been viewing the coalition building endemic to Kennet and Other cooperation as progressive coalition infighting. Basically, an unfortunate negative aspect of progressive politics which simply has to be salved, no two ways about it. If you've got an underlying coalition premise of respecting difference and hearing disagreement, made up of a bunch of groups with life-or-death needs that don't necessarily overlap (or even actively conflict), intense non-mainstream ideologies, and those groups have a habit habit of fighting over scarce crumbs, well. You're just going to have to infighting and have to deal with it. It's a problem which must be overcome.
But I'd been missing this part of Canadian politics where resolving infighting between minority coalitions is like a pulling-the-sword-from-the-stone thing. The whole deal with a Sikh cabinet member really made it click. I've been following Canadian politics from a distance for a while now so I knew that was a thing, but I just put that in my US framework: 'Huh. Canadian Sikhs must have a powerful lobby.' But no it's part of a symbol. To rule without it would be like ... well, kind of like ruling without a secular version of the mandate of heaven? Is that right? They're not just a leader who doesn't have the Sikh lobby, they're a leader who can't even do the basic function of politics well enough to reach a working detente with them. i.e. No leader at all.
So when the trio coalition build, it's not just the frustrating but necessary work of progressive politics leadership. It's *the capacity to be a political leader at all*. Of any stripe! They're pulling the sword from the stone. But as you said, in a very mundane way which is much more normative in a Canadian context versus how radical it is in an American one.
And I can even see how Musser mostly cleared this bar at the beginning of his campaign with all the families he brought together, but then trespassed into the forbidden realm of playing favorites and forming special interest power bases. He's making a big show of how he's going to pull the sword from the stone, but then fails to deliver at the end. And it's alienating key coalition members (specifically Durocher, who is the ur-example of an easy to please neutral player ones just needs to not personally offend) that dooms him.
Is that all about right? I really hope I'm parsing what you're saying correctly because I *feel* like I understand parts of Pale better now.
Re: Thanks and Questions
Date: 2024-10-05 01:06 pm (UTC)Re: Thanks and Questions
Date: 2024-10-05 06:48 pm (UTC)Martial Law?
Date: 2024-10-29 04:28 pm (UTC)