Does Lymond Act Like a Childish Brat in The Game of Kings?

[rusty_halo]

I got drujan to read The Game of Kings, and she liked it, but she has complaints about Lymond. Specifically, she thinks he was behaving like an immature brat by playing his own motivations so close to the vest. I was thinking about why I disagree, and I have two main reasons. First, Lymond is a creature of logic, and his refusal to proclaim his innocence is absolutely logical. Second, it serves one of Lymond's core motivations, which is to protect the people he cares about.

Let's look at it logically. Who could Lymond tell, and what would be the result?

* When he first returns to Scotland, he does tell his father... who chases him away with a whip. Lymond in Game of Kings is surprised that Richard doesn't know about this, so he probably assumes his family has already heard about his proclamation of innocence and are acting with knowledge of it.

His father's rejection, following years of exile and abuse, must have been devastating, and it's no wonder Lymond keeps his true self so hidden afterwards. This incident is the best example supporting drujan's belief that Lymond is acting out of an emotional self-protective mechanism. I don't deny that it's there, but it's complimented by other very good reasons.

* Lymond could tell Sybilla. Except, she already knows. Lymond and Sybilla understand each other better than anyone else in the world. If you re-read the first scene between them in Game of Kings, they communicate in coded phrases and literary references that none of the other guests understand. Sybilla knows that Lymond is innocent and spends much of the book trying to help him: covering the fact that he returned the silver, keeping tabs on him via Johnnie Bullo, making sure he gets sent into the hands of allies when he's captured. There's nothing else Sybilla could do; if she supported him openly she'd simply be condemned along with him. Lymond is trying to clear his name, but he knows that failure is likely, and the last thing he wants is to bring his family down too. Sybilla is smart enough to recognize this and to keep her mouth shut about Lymond's innocence, even though surely there's nothing she wants more than to protect her younger son. She just knows that she has to do it in secret.

* Which brings us to Richard. There are two possibilities if Lymond proclaims his innocence to Richard. The first is that Richard, like his father, refuses to believe Lymond, thus recreating what must have been one of the more emotionally devastating moments of Lymond's life.

The second possibility is that Richard does believe Lymond, which would actually be worse. Richard is an idealist who sees the world in black and white; he has none of Lymond and Sybilla's understanding of realpolitik. He'd never be able to keep his mouth shut; his immediate reaction would be to proclaim his brother's innocence and do everything in his power to support him. The result would be exactly what Lymond fears most: to bring his family down along with him. Lymond at that point has no proof of his own innocence; Richard would be condemned at his side. This actually does very nearly happen during the trial at the end, when Richard announces to the courtroom that he intended to help Lymond escape. If Lymond hadn't interrupted and called him a liar, Richard would have been condemned as a traitor. This is clear textual evidence that Lymond was right to keep Richard in the dark.

Think about it. Lymond's goal in the book is to clear his own name. Is it a selfish goal? I can't really see that. He knows he's innocent and wants to return to his family, resume his social position, and become a productive member of society. The one potentially selfish aspect is that his return puts his family at risk, which we know from the conversation Lymond eavesdrops on between Wat Scott and Tom Erskine at the beginning. They're already suspicious of Richard and he hasn't even proclaimed support for Lymond, merely refused to condemn him, which puts both Richard and Scotland itself at risk since they need Richard as a trustworthy leader in the looming war.

The obvious solution is for Lymond to publicly distance himself from Richard. The problem is that he doesn't count on the mix of Richard's dark side and Dandy Hunter's interference, all of which exacerbate the situation so that Richard puts himself at risk anyway by pursuing Lymond so single-mindedly. But Lymond's plan is logical and laudable, and did work in the sense that Richard was never accused of colluding with him, though of course it would have worked better without the unforseeable interference of Dandy Hunter.

Who else could Lymond have told?

* People say he should have been more open with Will Scott. This I don't get at all. Will Scott doesn't even know which way is up; he's in no position to logically evaluate Lymond's claims or to take any kind of useful action based on them. In fact, the near-certain result of Lymond proclaiming his innocence to Will would be Will laughing his ass off at the absurdity of the notorious outlaw pretending to be innocent. Why in the world would Will believe it? Will, like Richard, has very little understanding of the nuances and complexities of morality, though Lymond does try to open his mind. Will's not going to believe anything Lymond says, but Lymond does his best to teach through experience.

Lymond does try to prove his innocence by putting Will behind the door during his encounter with Margaret Lennox. Lymond then does everything in his power to get Margaret to confess to having framed him. It doesn't work because Margaret is just as clever and scheming as Lymond, and she knows perfectly well that there's someone behind the door. Still, Lymond was right to try this on Will, because the only way Will would believe his innocence is via proof that comes from someone other than Lymond.

I will concede that Lymond makes a mistake in not watching Will more closely. He's understandably busy with other things like, y'know, his own life and death situation, and trying to help Scotland win the war. But he did take Will on as a protegee and so he bears responsibility for Will's development under his tutelage. Will's mistake gets Turkey Mat killed, and as Will's leader Lymond bears some level of responsibility (which he accepts). This is a lesson that Dunnett revisits in further detail in Queen's Play, and which Lymond definitely learns from.

* Lymond could have told Christian Stewart who he is. He does basically tell her that he's an innocent person trying to clear his name, but he doesn't tell her his identity because he wants to protect her. And... the events of the book prove that he was absolutely right. It turns out Christian does know who he is and believes that he is innocent, so she proceeds to risk (and lose) her own life to save his. This is precisely what he was afraid would happen when he refused to reveal himself to her.

* Who else? Wat Scott would laugh him out of the room. If he turned himself in to the courts they'd kill him for treason. Honestly, who is he supposed to tell?

The fact is, he has two choices. He could flee Scotland and go into exile somewhere else, giving up his friends, his family, his fortune, his social position, and his country. Or he could risk his life by returning to Scotland and trying to prove his innocence. Since his family and his country are so important to him, he decides that he'd rather take the risk of returning--but only if he can keep his family safe while doing so.

And what he does upon his return is absolutely logical. He takes the necessary steps to protect his family by publicly distancing himself from them, and then he embarks upon a quest for proof of his innocence, using his outlaw gang for cover and assistance. The entire book is structured around this goal; even the sections are titled based on it: "The Play for Jonathan Crouch," "The Play for Gideon Somerville," and "The Play for Samuel Harvey." He's hunting down the three possibilities of people who can provide proof of his innocence. Once he has the proof, he'll disband his outlaw gang and turn himself in. Before that, it would be suicide. He doesn't tell anyone else what he's doing not because he's acting childish, but because he quite rightly doesn't want to bring anyone else down with him.

I guess the question you could still ask is, okay, he has good reasons for keeping his motivations quiet, but does he have to be so prickly and off-putting? I'll agree that this is partly due to his own emotional damage--he's angry, depressed, under immense stress, and borderline-suicidal for much of the novel. Unsurprisingly, he's not on his kindest behavior. He's also been burned badly when he did open up to others--he was betrayed by his lover and rejected by his father. Undoubtedly he's learned to push people away as a protective mechanism. It's also got a lot to do with his moral code: he refuses to explain himself because he believes he should be judged not on his intentions but on his actions (which is why he blames himself for his sister's death even though it was an inadvertent result of him trying to help his country).

And, again, let's look logically at who he's a jerk toward. Sybilla? They're both acting to protect the family. Richard? Lymond's putting on a show with the goal of keeping Richard safe. Mariotta? Lymond's trying to shock her out of her romantic delusions and send her back to Richard. Will? Lymond's trying to teach him that morality isn't as simplistic as he believes, which eventually works (although rather belatedly). Margaret Lennox? She's the scheming monster who used and betrayed him--he's trying to get her to confess. The one person Lymond is thoroughly kind to is Christian, but that's because he thinks she doesn't know who he is, so he's able to open up and be himself around her.

I'm not denying that he's got an epic amount of emotional damage, but still, most of what he does is both logical and for an admirable purpose.

Current Mood: thoughtful & thoughtful

Originally published at rusty-halo.com. You can comment here or there.