A rather long observation...

[kitsune-rains.livejournal.com]

So I'm re-reading The Thief and every three pages or so I say, Wait a second, what's this all about? I should ask the nice people at Sounis!

And then I forget what the hell I was talking about.

But here's something that puzzles me that I do remember. I hope I'm not being repetitive, but I didn't see this on any older posts. Gen stole Hamiathes's Gift, right? Twice. And then he's saved by it when they are captured by the Attolians... and yet, earlier in the book it was specifically said that Hamiathes's Gift was useless unless it was given to the bearer.


          " 'When a usurper stole the stone and soon thereafter died, it was understood that the power of the stone was lost unless it was given to the bearer, and so a tradition grew up that allowed the throne of Eddis to change hands peacefully when another country might have had a civil war. One person stole the stone and then gave it to his chosen candidate for the throne, in that way making him rightful king.' "

When Gen steals the stone he is paralyzed, hand extended, and though Eugenides repeatedly prompts him to take the stone he can't do a thing. But then this happens:

          "And then, because I thought that if I were dying, I would do something that very few had done since the world was made, I looked again into the eyes of the Great Goddess, and for a moment she looked back at me. That was enough."

My theory here would be that he may have never been told outright to take it from Hephestia, but she still gave him permission of sorts.

So.

Gen surrenders the stone to the magus, for however short a time and here I'm divided. I mean, why not just let the magus think he never got the stone at all? But, that aside, this is what happens:

          "I had meant to make him wait a little, but he sounded so bleak that without meaning to, I rolled my hand over and opened the fist so that he could see the Gift, resting on my palm.
          His knees seemed to weaken and he squatted down beside me with his mouth open. I smiled at his wonder and my own delight. I was taken aback when he put his arms around my shoulders and hugged me like his own son, or anyway like a close relative.
          'You are a wonder, Gen. I will carve your name on a stele outside the basilica, I promise.'
          I laughed out loud.
          'Where was it?'
          I told him about the obsidian door and the stairway to the throne room, but I stumbled a little. When it came time to mention the gods, I passed over them. It didn't seem right to talk about them in the light of day, with people who didn't believe and might laugh. If the magus noticed, he didn't comment.
          'The river came down just as you said it might,' he told me. 'And washed right across our campsite on the lower bank. So we owe you for our lives as well as for this.' He looked down at the stone he held in his hand."

And so while we weren't looking the magus managed to get the stone away from our thief. Since Gen hasn't had any dialogue at all in this exchange, it makes it seem as though he's being especially passive. It's never mentioned that he actively gives the stone to the magus, so does this mean that the magus took it? Is that why when Gen steals it back later he still won't die? Because he never relinquished it?

As an aside, when Attolia first visits Gen in the palace dungeons she turns to leave and her peplos sweeps across the back of Gen's hand. He winces because, "The velvet was soft, but the embroidery scratched."

I love this single line. It's Attolia in a nutshell. The velvet is naturally soft, but it's the embellishments that make it rough. The embroidery which is supposed to improve it, and does indeed make it prettier, makes it much less palatable up close.

Attolia herself is the same. She's a good person made harsh and cruel by her circumstances. She sacrifices her own emotions and well being (Since she's always trying to appear to be Hephestia, I could even go as far as to say she sacrifices her own self) in order to maintain the careful facade she requires to remain queen. And Gen, sees immediately past all that to the velvet underneath.

Comments

[readsintrees.livejournal.com]

I never interpreted the whole thing as Gen surviving the Attolians because of the Gift. I just assumed he wasn't badly injured enough. You're right in that the Gift only works if it's given to someone, but I don't think this applies to Gen because I wasn't under the impression that the Gift granted invincibility, just immortality. Meaning, if you're given the Gift, you can live forever as long as nothing kills you (think of the elves from Lord of the Rings....they live forever, but they can still be killed).

So yeah, Gen stole the Gift twice, and by stealing it he would not get immortality. Yes, he got stabbed by an Attolian, but it just wasn't a fatal wound. He wasn't saved by the Gift, therefore MWT storyline and logic is still correct.


I also love the line about the embroidery. I've also always taken that as a direct reference to Attolia herself.

[readsintrees.livejournal.com]

The only way I can see that the Gift saved Gen (and not just his own stubbornness), was if he didn't technically steal it from Hephestia in the first place. One could suggest that her returning his stare was her giving him permission to take the Gift, in which case Gen would have the powers of the Gift. However, he DID steal it back from the Magus again....so shouldn't that neutralize being given the Gift the first time around?

No, I'm going to stand firm on my opinion that since Gen stole the Gift (twice, he even mentions stealing it twice, so perhaps he doesn't feel Hephestia gave it to him) he does not benefit from its immortal powers.

For further discussion, here is the quote about being stabbed:

"I'd felt my life dragged out with the sword, but in the end my life wouldn't go. It had stretched between me and the sword.I think that only the power of the gods could have kept me alive, but at the same time my living was an offense to them. I should have died, but instead the pain went on and on. Dying would have been so much easier."

Now, I suppose everyone is reading this as Gen's life was literally leaving his body, but the Gift prevented it. I don't see it this way. Since Gen stole the Gift (twice!), it wasn't the Gift that saved him. I think it was probably a mixture of his own stubbornness, and maybe the idea that the gods interfered on his behalf (regardless of the Gift). We see in following books that the gods allow or prevent things from happening, for mysterious reasons. Maybe they were just giving Gen's life a little nudge for the sake of keeping him alive for their own plans later on. If they'd let Gen die, the Gift would either have been lost, or more likely it would have been discovered on his dead body. If it was the Magus that found it, then Sounis would have gotten the Gift, and taken over rule of Eddis. He would have waged war on Attolia, and the countries would never have been united. Also, GEn wouldn't have been able to marry Attolia and unite those two countries. When the Medes arrived, they would have been weak and fallen.

When Gen says the thing about his living being an offense to them, perhaps he just means that Aracthus was still mad about the Gift being stolen...or...who knows. Anyway, it's Gen saying "I think". It doesn't necessarily say he is correct.

[etv13.livejournal.com]

Maybe the problem is that the tradition that grew up after the usurper died focuses too literally on the idea of the stone's being "given to the bearer" and not on the underlying motivations of the Thief. In other words, the stone does keep Gen alive, because Gen didn't steal it to have for himself, like the usurper, but to give to his cousin for the good of their country.

[zumie-ashlen.livejournal.com]

Can I just say how awesome it is to have a place to come talk about this? Seriously, I'm geeking out over this discussion (although I don't have much to contribute--been a while since I read The Thief). Loving all the comments! :D

[charlotteslibrary.blogspot.com (from livejournal.com)]

Oh my gosh--is that foreshadowing then, when Attolia's emboridery scratches Gen's hand of what she's going to do to his hand next?

[reader-marie.livejournal.com]

Wow!

What a great discussion...I've had a lot of fun reading/following it so far! I'm not sure I have much to contribute, except to say that when I first read The Thief, I skipped right over the implication that Hamiathes' Gift might have saved Gen's life, until I got to the end and started to wonder. The second time I read the book I went, "of course! That's why he didn't die--because he had the Gift!" So I've always been under the impression that it was the Gift that saved him, and I'd never really thought about the whys and hows until now. (So thanks for making me think!)

I'm still not quite sure what I think, but I do like the idea that the Gift takes into account the intentions of the thief or bearer. Also, I think it's pretty clear that Gen (not the Magus!) gets the permission of the gods to take the stone--is it at the end of The Thief that he says he'd come to believe each successive generation removed the Gift from the temple only with the permission of the gods?

Oh--and I also love the line about velvet and embroidery. So Attolia. (And I never even thought that it might be foreshadowing! Yikes!)

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

I think the Gift kept Gen alive because he wasn't stealing it for himself, as others have said.

However, I also think that every action the gods take is always open to skepticism. It's clear that a lot of people in Gen's world don't believe in the gods -- so everything they do can look like coincidence to those who haven't come face to face with them. I think it's deliberately left to the reader to decide whether the Gift saved Gen, whether the gods saved him without the use of the Gift, or whether he was just amazingly lucky that that sword didn't kill him.

[sclerotia.livejournal.com]

I always thought the stone had saved Eugenides twice. Once when the river would have drowned him and once when the sword would have killed him. And I thought that it was the ruler of Eddis who had to receive the stone as a gift and not the Thief. After all a Thief is a thief and would naturally be stealing the stone.

[hazelwillow.livejournal.com]

Well, this is months late, but I had fun reading this discussion and I have something to add. I puzzled over this when I read the thief... and this is what i thought:

As I remember, when we find out that the stone doesn't work if it's stolen, it's in the context of someone who stole it directly from the previous king. And I think they stole it in order to become king themselves --but then they died, so the stone's power hadn't worked on them. At that point in the book we don't know about the gods involvement so it's not mentioned.

But it turns out when the king's thief steals it, he's stealing it from the gods, not the previous king directly (It mentions the gift must have been hidden in the temple with each successive generation for centuries), and it's only ever removed "with the permission of the gods".

I think what matters is that you stole it from the gods, because that really means the gods have let you steal it from them. And they did give Gen permission (the god Eugenides does explicitly --a good task for the god of thieves, giving the thief permission to steal from them!). Gen was someone the gods trusted to take the gift, and I don't think that trust would go away just because the Magus had it for a short time. So its power worked on him, and on other people he decided to give it to voluntarily. If someone had stolen it from Gen, it wouldn't have worked on them.

What really matters is the god's involvement/permission. It gives the gods a say in who will be the next ruler of eddis, every generation, because only a thief they trust would be able to take it from the temple, and only someone he trusts could become the next ruler.

:)
thanks for indulging my nerd-enthusiasm!