The Hunter&#39;s Forest

Gerald and the idea of goodness? *blinks* I can't imagine it^_^

From:

Aw, come on. Just think of him, all nice and fluffy, kind to children and animals...

From:

*blinks and tries to think*
That would be like saying the sky is purple^_^

But no, I think some of his sadism and extreme reactions to annihilating any threat to his person and his ideals need to be toned down a little. And he needs to see humans as living breathing beings instead of "prey" but other than that? I don't see Gerald changing much.

If we're speaking of him as a real person and not as a fictional character, I still can't see him turning wholly towards fluffy kittens and god-like benevolence. I see the new Gerald at the end of the Trilogy as realizing that this time he might really end up in Hell so he'll try to achieve his goals without directly or intentionally killing/harming someone. Notice the "directly" part. Because I have a feeling he'll be like the Devil who whispers in one's ears and offers all kinds of glimpses of temptation but when Judgment Day comes no one can say "The Devil made me do it!"... yet there is no doubt that he played a hand in it.

Am I making sense?^_^

From:

I'm thinking that he and, say, Cardinal Richelieu, would have been great friends. Or terrible enemies. Great at pulling the strings and making the little puppets dance.

I can see him lose the sadism; there is no need for it anymore, and it came with the demonic side. Though I imagine that at least traces would linger, since a habit of a few centuries is probably not that easy to get rid of. But the attitude of protecting his projects at all cost... I'm not so sure about that. He did that as a human already, and it seems so very ingrained. It was the one reason he was willing to die for.

So Hell would have been a warning call for him to be somewhat more cautious about not ruining his fresh start, and not break any obvious rules, merely find loopholes?

From:

I think Gerald would have enjoyed having him as an enemy. He likes a good challenge^^

But the attitude of protecting his projects at all cost... I'm not so sure about that. He did that as a human already, and it seems so very ingrained. It was the one reason he was willing to die for.

True, but as Damien said he can't escape death forever. I would think his repeated brushes with death in the trilogy would make more cautious. He can't always count on finding some way to resurrect himself without losing his entire identity. He's already Sacrificed a lot.

Yep, that's how I see it.

From:

And they'd be both religious enough to have fun with that as well. Plus, experience with crusades on both sides. *wonders whether Gerald looks good in red*

I imagine it would make him more cautious, but might that not lead to a strong determination again to eliminate the need for this caution? I can just see him working on a new kind of immortality for a while and then going back to taking care of his precious work.

From:

As long as it's a dark red, trimmed with pale gold?, then yes^_^

But if we to repeating that circle again, he'd ended up damned yet again. And what new kind of immortality can he try? He's tried being a demon, vampire, undead sorcerer, and part of a forest. And let's not forget rebirth through some form of giving up a name/identity. There is a limit to how much one can do, even on Erna's fae-driven world.

From:

*laughs* Interesting image. Not quite the catholic cardinal outfit, but quite wearable, I imagine.

The identity change seems like a rather permanent option. He could always move to a new one whenever things turn lethal. It wouldn't necessarily damn him that way... but he was willing to do it once. And Hell was the only thing that worried him about it (aside from probably not being able to see God once it finally came to a manifestation), so as long as immortality removes that risk, I can see him go on like that. Though it would make more sense to remove the reason why Hell is a threat rather than avoid it that way.

From:

fyrie.livejournal.com

I can see him doing it, but his way, like he does with Jenseny, when he gives her toys to keep her entertained and Damien facepalms because he hadn't thought of it.

Thinking of it, he'd be like Cox in Scrubs or House in House MD. He'd do what was necessary, even if it meant being good to people, but in a way that ensured he's still the same cunning, ruthless and merciless bastard he's always been. Although, I think with less of the chasing-unfortunate-females-through-forests from here on in.

Heck, even in the books, he did show elements of kindness at the oddest of moments, although - admittedly - most of them were directed at Damien and in a "Oh, will you stop getting yourself in trouble" way :)

From:

Gerald compared to House and Cox. I think you broke my mind.

I can see him doing it, but his way, like he does with Jenseny, when he gives her toys to keep her entertained and Damien facepalms because he hadn't thought of it.

Yes, but this also had pleasant side effects, like keeping her out of his way and quiet without having to stuff her into a closet, which would have resulted in Damien being annoyingly vocal again.

I imagine not having to chase females through forests is quite a convenience. It's not like he had that hobby before; and now it simply saves on time he can better spend on fun things, like playing with his Earth aftefacts, research the Iezu language and annoy Damien. A lot about the Hunter was a restriction and therefore an inconvenience, so I imagine he might be rather happy to be rid of that.

I agree on the moments of kindness, but at the moment I can't really think of one that didn't help his own goals in some way. Like keeping Damien going since humans sometimes need a touch of commiseration to not feel alone in order to stay functioning. The only altruism he managed was at the end.

From:

House and .... Gerald? *blinks slowly*

Now I'm tempted to write a fic where the new Gerald gets sick for the first time in 900 years, and naturally doesn't remember what pain is like anymore, and Damien taking him to meet the best healer in the land.... who turns out to be a sadistic man with a sharper tongue than his scalpel! XD

From:

*poke poke poke*

And while they bicker and snarl at each other, Damien and the sadistic man's kinder friend will stand there, watch, and facepalm a lot.

From:

I think I'm in a rather odd situation about this because I don't especially like Tarrant as an evil character. He's a complex and fascinating one... but I don't like him. The parts of him I like are some of the most human ones (even though they're also the ones that led him to his damnation:) the intellectual curiosity (he's such a geek XD), the vanity and extreme sense of aesthetics, his vision of the Church...

One of the thing that I really liked about Tarrant was the conversation he had with Damien in WTNF when Damien observes that a simpler man would have found his way back to God earlier. The self-consciousness it implies I find very interesting.

I don't like the Hunter. Having just reread Crown of Shadows I was again stricken how much I found him to be a bastard in Andrys' prologue etc. I don't like his particular brand of sadism. And I really don't like his sexism.

So redemption for me is a question of... is it possible to forgive this? I think Friedman herself was on the fence there, and that's why she kept killing and resurecting him. She couldn't wholly redeem him, and she coudln't either let him die. So we get an uneasy midway.

In the future I suppose I lean toward redemption, because it would be a waste otherwise :) Tarrant is stripped of the most sadistic side of himself by the creation of Riven Forrest (too handy, but well...)
I can't imagine him being good in the same basic way as Damien. But I think he'd seize the occasion to not be evil anymore.

From:

actually I don't really like his vanity, I just like the mocking of it.

From:

Full agreement on him being an incredible geek. ;-)

With Tarrant there's always the need to divide between liking the character and finding him fascinating. Liking him is difficult, but he is the most fascinating anti-hero I've come across for a while. Tarrant is complicated, possibly too much for his own good (and for that of readers and especially writers - both Friedman, as far as the ending went, and us poor fic writers).

I'd think that with Riven stripping the Hunter off him, it would take Tarrant back to where he started out; someone with high aspirations who is still willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his ends. And he is just so proud of his achievements and victories; like he said in that WTNF conversation, he'd have to declare them defeats, and wrong, for redemption to happen. It would mean denying his human aspects, in my opinion, not just the sadistic, demonic side.

Being good would be a conscious decision on his part. I can't see him simply change his attitude by chance.

From:

I think that lots of people genuinely like him anyway ;)

He is a very fascinating anti-hero... but probably not the most I've ever read about. Close enough.

There are few characters I would call "evil", so I guess I have low standarts there. And I don't see "willingness to do whatever it takes to achive one's end" is evil as such.

I think the pride in his pride in achievements is another thing the peculiar ending played in. He cannot claim these anymore. He sacrificed them when he sacrificed his identity.
You're right it's hard to imagine him coming to learn humility (much as he'd need it)

From:

I remember my first read. I alternated between wanting to pet him, and wanting to whack him. And usually cheered whenever Damien took him down a peg in some way.

Do you have any other recommendable anti-heroes to read about?

For me the evilness in the willingness to do anything necessary comes from not recognizing moral boundaries anymore. There is nothing he will stop at, and this cold ruthlessness qualifies as an evil trait for me. It might be a matter of semantics, though.

Good point on not being able to lay claim to his old achievements; I hadn't really thought of that. But it wouldn't be so hard to subscribe to his own beliefs and simply keep an eye on things, not as the Prophet but as someone with a steep career in the Church, for example.

Gerald and humility is... frightening, really. I can see that nice Hell freezing over once that happens.

From:

I adore it when Damien takes him down a peg... but it doesn't happen much XD

I have many, but I bet you know most of them.
A Song of Ice and Fire has many ambiguous characters, I'm especially fond of Jaime Lannister, Sandor Clegane, Littlefinguer and Tyrion of course. None of them are antiheros exactly though (well Sandor's the closest I guess, but is a bit too minor a character)
There's Snape ^^ whom I love for being so ugly with stark difference with Tarrant. Friedman kept her archetype all glamorized and seductive, as much as she also deconstructed him. Snape is never glamorized (except by the fangirls&boys but there's no helping that)
Have you ever read any Stephen Donaldson? Angus Thermopyle from the Gap series is an interesting case. Few characters are as easy to revile; but he's still an antihero, in a weird fashion (these books, by the way, also have one of my favourite mad scientist character - he's not a villain - quite the darling ♥)
There's Alec from Swordspoint and Priviledge of the Swords by Kushner. I'm not sure if he counts as antihero, but I adore him and he's quite mad, frequently cruel, scathinglty honnest and occasionnal moral. He's lots of fun.
One of the best antihero I've ever read about would have to be Cheradenine Zakalwe from Ian Banks' Use of Weapon, which is a stunning book.
Have you ever read Tanith Lee's Tale of the Flat Earth? You must read it. There's a passage in it that reminds me very much of Tarrant.
There's Kellhus from Prince of Nothing which I've just reviewed at my journal, who's a very unusual kind of antihero.
And I've still a lot of love for Haplo from Margaret Weis&Tracy Hickman's Death Gate cycle even if I don't dare to reread it. It's probably aged badly from when I was a teen, but damn, I used to love him.

From:

Song of Ice and Fire is truly good, as far as the ambiguous characters go. I admit I have a soft spot for the two Lannisters; I liked Tyrion from the start, and Jaime thankfully developed a bit of a brain lately.

Kushner doesn't do much for me, for some reason. And Snape... obvious one. :-) But I have to check out the others. Interesting books are always good to have, especially when there are good ambiguous characters in them.

From:

Jaime's a bit of a blonde isn't he ? XD I love the fact that we've seen Tyrion often wonder "what would Jaime do", and then when we had Jaime's PoV he was all "what would Tyrion do" ! But he can think... when he remembers not to act first. I love Jaime's brash attitude, the way he acts arrogantly about the things he's being reviled about. Tyrion's a darling, but he really suffers the comparison to Miles Vorkosigan for me.

I hope you don't mind SF as well as Fantasy, I mixed both.

From:

Ah, Jaime and Tyrion... I admit that I was rather glad about the ending of AFoC, as far as Cersei was concerned, but I do have a soft spot for the Lannister boys. I'd love to see them interact again.

I don't mind the mix. SF isn't a genre I know much about, so starting points are useful there.

From:

trobadora

See, the process of redemption is interesting, but once it's reached, that's the end of it. We're in fandom because we want more, so I'm sure most of us would rather he doesn't reach that final goal.

Also, while I don't think redemption would mean he had to entirely give up his ruthlessness, it would mean a definite end to all the delicious mutual corruption between Gerald and Damien - if they reached balance, wouldn't that be boring?

Not to mention that I like the Hunter more than human Gerald, but that's a different story entirely. *g*

From:

We're in fandom because we want more, so I'm sure most of us would rather he doesn't reach that final goal.

*nodding vigorously* Redeem him and there's nothing to write about anymore, aside from him and Damien being fluffy and bickering.

I think redemption would mean staying away from all these things he himself said people shouldn't want to do. So depending on what he wrote into his canon... but given Damien's reactions, it would look rather bleak without a turnabout of his lifestyle.

Balance between them would be an interesting moment to see, in a "final fic ever" kind of way. But the corruption and influence is what makes their interactions so much fun, I fully agree with you on that.

*grin* I admit I lean towards the Hunter too, under some circumstances. I just don't quite know what to think of human Gerald, at least the post-trilogy version.

From:

winter

I think that if Gerald ever did pursue redemption, he would do it with the exact same ruthlessness as he pursued immortality. He just can't be good and fluffy, it's against his nature. The only redemption I see for him is perhaps actual awareness of his own faults...

From:

I think he's actually quite aware of his faults already, he just doesn't necessarily think of them as faults.

Pursing redemption with that kind of ruthlessness would be a somewhat self-defeating exercise, I think. Egoism rarely sits well with religious concepts, and neither does arrogance. So true redemption might be out of his reach.

From:

winter

I think that all things considered, Damien is his redemption. Both the opening of his eyes and bringing out his best qualities.

(If I'm not making any sense, that would be because I'm braindead from work...)

From:

I think you're making a lot of sense. :-)

From:

misura.livejournal.com

True, honest-to-himself redemption isn't something I could ever imagine Tarrant to feel; I think that he was right when he said that he can't say he's sorry for having lived all those extra years and actually mean it. I suppose he might, at some point, feel a conditional kind of regret - *if* there'd been a cleaner (read: more aesthetic and less gory) way to prolong his life, *then* he'd feel sorry for not having used that instead.

... I don't think he would quite define himself as 'evil' - he just uses that term to Damien, because the Church didn't want to go for that whole 'Hell doesn't exist' and 'anything that can be used, should be used' type of philosophy. Thus, I'd say he's never going to put himself 'on the way to goodness'. ~~Damien's going to have to drag him there, and put up with being poked fun at every step of the way.~~

From:

I agree about the redemption. I can't see him change his ways in that way; it just runs contrary to his character. He's too proud of his achievements, and far too pragmatic to regret what he did in face of what it earned him.

As for defining him as evil... interesting point. It is a black-and-white philosophy, and while the Church may have had some idea of Good,Tarrant at the least was trying to avoid defining evil in any way.

I wonder what Damien's chances of success are...

From:

prettyarbitrary.livejournal.com

*laugh* What a question! I don't think I want to see him redeemed, really. He wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Though...well, being a good man doesn't preclude being an interesting one. He'd still be Tarrant.

But there's the problem. I can't see it happening. He knows all too well that redemption has nothing to do with loopholes or even outcomes. It's what you want, and your reasons for wanting it. He'll never be a saint, regardless of anything else. When he was the Prophet, it was because of his insight, not his goodness. I think he was honestly idealistic, honestly wanted the best for people, but if he'd been that good a man, if he'd had that kind of faith, he wouldn't have panicked and done what he did. Tarrant never believed in the God of earth, I think. He only ever had faith in the Fae and what it could create.

More than pride in his creations, even, I doubt Tarrant could ever regret having had the time to see what he's seen. He couldn't regret the opportunities he's had to learn, to understand the world better, even to meet some of the people he's met. He might find it in him to regret what he had to become to do so, to repent the things he had to do to keep his immortality...I don't know whether that'd be enough.

In the end, I'm not sure whether it's necessary. The Church won its war. The Fae doesn't answer to humanity's whims anymore. Maybe God-in-the-Fae is no longer an issue. If there's a God outside that (and who knows the answer to that one?), Tarrant might have a chance. I like to think a real God would be more understanding than one that humanity would create.

From: