Ekaterin and Tien
Apr. 20th, 2009 12:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jsburbidgeAsked on the Bujold list: "Given all his faults, why had Ekaterin put up with Tien for ten years?" (Which is connected, in my mind with a couple of posts at Obsidian Wings by Hilzoy about why abused spouses don't leave).
Note that by the standards of the abusive relationships Hilzoy talks about, Tien was pretty small-time: "at least he never hit me", I think Ekaterin thinks to herself at one point. My memory is that he did more direct threats to himself than to her. Of course, Bujold designed him as a classic Borderline type: abuse by psychological manipulation.
The obvious answer has been repeated many times: because she had a vow and a sense of honor. But there's more behind that.
I think a better answer to the question is: because the ties of responsibility are very hard indeed to break, once they're taken on. Again, people cite Nikki, but he's a specific aspect of that concern.
People like Tien are, especially once one has taken on some responsibility for them, almost more pitiable than people at whom one gets angry. They can't see what they do wrong, and they are dreadfully reliant on others. (When they can see that they've done something wrong, they ask for forgiveness and then think that the whol account is cleared, just like that...)
And there's a real undertow, if you have an adult sense of responsibility (which is also what underlies that sense about one's word) where doing something for somebody is better than doing it for yourself. There's a purpose there, and positive feedback from the real or anticipated response of the person for whom you do it. (Trivially, cooking dinner for somebody else is more fun than just cooking for yourself.)
And as long as the really crappy behaviour is localized -- an irrational rant here, another off-the-wall declaring somebody hostile there, but well separated by gaps of time, and as long as it's clear what techniques to use, conversationally and operationally, to minimize the wonky behaviour -- it's possible to focus on the better parts of life and convince yourself that this is all normal enough, "every marriage has its disagreements".
The subtler risk -- to which there are certainly suggestions that Ekaterin succumbed -- is to start seeing the other's worldview as normal; or, if not as the only possible normal (which is Tien's view, of course) at least as a reasonable variant of normal. (Whence the reaction Miles identifies in ACC: "Am I crazy? Am I crazy?") Once the measuring stick itself has ceased to be useful, one can accept a good deal more.
And Tien was "helped" by having a real problem to deal with, the Vorzohn's Dystrophy (for all that his reaction to it was both irrational and self-destructive). Without some very real problem to hang the rest of the behaviour on, Tien would have been far more transparent from early on.
That's (part of ) my take on Ekaterin.
Note that by the standards of the abusive relationships Hilzoy talks about, Tien was pretty small-time: "at least he never hit me", I think Ekaterin thinks to herself at one point. My memory is that he did more direct threats to himself than to her. Of course, Bujold designed him as a classic Borderline type: abuse by psychological manipulation.
The obvious answer has been repeated many times: because she had a vow and a sense of honor. But there's more behind that.
I think a better answer to the question is: because the ties of responsibility are very hard indeed to break, once they're taken on. Again, people cite Nikki, but he's a specific aspect of that concern.
People like Tien are, especially once one has taken on some responsibility for them, almost more pitiable than people at whom one gets angry. They can't see what they do wrong, and they are dreadfully reliant on others. (When they can see that they've done something wrong, they ask for forgiveness and then think that the whol account is cleared, just like that...)
And there's a real undertow, if you have an adult sense of responsibility (which is also what underlies that sense about one's word) where doing something for somebody is better than doing it for yourself. There's a purpose there, and positive feedback from the real or anticipated response of the person for whom you do it. (Trivially, cooking dinner for somebody else is more fun than just cooking for yourself.)
And as long as the really crappy behaviour is localized -- an irrational rant here, another off-the-wall declaring somebody hostile there, but well separated by gaps of time, and as long as it's clear what techniques to use, conversationally and operationally, to minimize the wonky behaviour -- it's possible to focus on the better parts of life and convince yourself that this is all normal enough, "every marriage has its disagreements".
The subtler risk -- to which there are certainly suggestions that Ekaterin succumbed -- is to start seeing the other's worldview as normal; or, if not as the only possible normal (which is Tien's view, of course) at least as a reasonable variant of normal. (Whence the reaction Miles identifies in ACC: "Am I crazy? Am I crazy?") Once the measuring stick itself has ceased to be useful, one can accept a good deal more.
And Tien was "helped" by having a real problem to deal with, the Vorzohn's Dystrophy (for all that his reaction to it was both irrational and self-destructive). Without some very real problem to hang the rest of the behaviour on, Tien would have been far more transparent from early on.
That's (part of ) my take on Ekaterin.
