Just finished Bendigo Shafter for the, um, third or fourth time. I noticed a paragraph in Ch 28 (page 270 in my copy) where Bendigo discusses compromise and how it is the cornerstone of civilization. He comments that a man who "stands unyielding and immovable upon a principle is often a fool, and often bigoted, and usually left standing alone, while others adjust their differences and go on."

I believe the early Christians were unwilling to yield on their principles. I don't think our founding fathers were willing to yield on many of their principles. I know they compromised on some things when writing the Constitution. But on most thinks they were standing firm. Same thing with our Bill or Rights. I believe that Martin Luther King had principles upon which he would not compromise. I'm sure history is full of situations where people were not willing to compromise their principles. But, on the other hand, there are times when compromise can and should be reached. We just have to pray for the wisdom to recognize which is which.

Justintime

It's possible to accept the actions of others (and ourselves) that fail to measure up to principles, without compromising the principle itself.

Falcon

If your are saying that we need to be willing to accept our own humanity, I would agree.

However, I think there are some lines that should never be intentionally crossed. Where those lines lie may be between you and your God. Our founding fathers tried to establish some of those lines in our Constitution. As for me, I just believe that always being willing to compromise as a general rule means living in a world without absolutes and everything becomes relative.

Justintime

Falcon, I would add that when one compromises a principle that is strongly held, there is a price to be paid in guilt and regret. If there is no guilt or regret, then, the principle probably held little meaning. For example, a person makes a compromise for which years later he says it was his greatest regret because the other side of the compromise was never upheld. I would believe this person to be a man of principle. Whereas, another person makes a very explicit promise which he does not uphold. It costs him greatly but, he never expresses any feelings of guilt or regret. This would lead me to believe he was not a person of real principle. Or, at least a person who believed in the principle of upholding one's word. He might not have fared too well in Sackett's world. Point being that I would agree that compromise has its place but, compromise of one's principles comes with a price.

Justintime

If memory serves there were some who thought the entire bill or rights was a compromise, an unnessary addition because its inclusion suggested that anything needed to be spelled out at all and that anything clarifying our "natural rights" had the potential to limit them. I'll have to dive back into some history books. There were several compromises in regard to slavery. Early founding documents being more anti, later drafts modified to bring in more support from the South.

The concept of compromise, particularly in politics, does not equal "constant compromise" ... that's just a slow surrender.

I believe we're all on the same page. Compromise shouldn't be a four-letter word, but there needs to be good reason and ample consideration in the process.

Falcon

Amen.

Justintime

I am reading “The Walking Drum” for the nth time and found a passage that I thought echoed Falcon’s comment. In Ch 32, the character Kerbouchard is talking with a student named Julot whom he has met in Paris. Julot makes the comment, “Compromise is an evil word” to which Kerbouchard replies.

Part of his response is, “A man should not compromise his principles, but he need not flaunt them, as a banner. There is a time to talk and a time to be still.” It reminds me of the passage in Ecclesiastes Ch 3 vs 1-8, “For everything there is a season…”.

Hope everyone is having a blessed Easter.

Justintime

One should always separate the voice of a character from the voice of the author. One is NOT the other ...

In MY opinion good writing is always open to interpretation. It is intentionally vague. LL was a master at this. That doesn't mean that it is without detail, but that detail is judiciously applied, just enough to be convincing, not enough to get in the way of the audience's imagination and thus compromise their ability to became a co-creator in the experience of reading.

My take is that when characters speak they only speak for themselves. What they say may or may not be the true feelings of the author. If an audience member chooses to learn something from what is written, the audience member needs to realize that the words just guide all members of the audience in a GENERAL direction. Each reader takes their own path and reaches their own conclusion.

Art is not about what the artist expresses, it is about what it makes you, the audience member, THINK and FEEL.

Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) writes at masterclass .com that a writer may have a "distinctive voice that transcends individual works". I get that impression from LL.

Justintime

>Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) writes at
>masterclass .com that a writer may have
>a "distinctive voice that transcends
>individual works". I get that
>impression from LL.

My take is "Yeah, of course" ... but if you are trying to divine some sort of moral message that MUST be ABSOLUTELY consistent across dozens of works and several decades you could be asking too much of any writer or what he bothered to write down while trying to earn a living from one day to the next. In some ways it's easier for Dan Brown to say this, you can count his works on both hands, and you don't need both hands.

My feeling is that if you raise expectations too high you are asking for trouble and inviting disappointment. As was noted in another thread Dad could sometimes create a staggering number of pages in a very short time. Sometimes things said that are separated by many years, end up being in conflict with one another.

The baseline with Louis is: Have Fun With It ... but be careful taking it as scripture. Dad was an entertainer. He may have occasionally thought of himself as inspiring education through his writing. That means he wanted the work to open people's minds. It wasn't an education, it was intended to engage curiosity so the reader might then educate themselves through other works, works of non-fiction, on various subjects they found interesting.

Excellent points and well said.

Justintime