VLVL Prairie and DL

[Paul Nightingale]

Continued.

>From jbor:

> > Prairie says: "I'll have to trust you." DL responds: "You'll have to
> trust
> > yourself."
> 
> I.e. And *not* DL. It's an overt contradiction of Prairie's statement of
> trust, an acknowledgement by DL that she hasn't been worthy of Prairie's
> trust in what has transpired thus far.
> 
I think the difference between "I'll have to trust you" and "You'll have to
trust yourself" is simply the choice of a passive or active role for Prairie
as a narrative agent. The latter sees her take responsibility for what she's
going to do, as opposed to simply deferring to someone else's better
judgement. The chapter will end with her taking the initiative to leave
Isaiah and go with DL. In terms of what happens (Prairie going with DL) the
'choice' amounts to pretty much the same course of action.

You want to insist that DL has somehow betrayed Prairie, and has
acknowledged this by admitting that she can't be trusted. How then do you
account for the fact that they still leave together at the end of the
chapter?

> > DL says: "You ought to at least have Takeshi's input on this. Any
> > reason you can't come with me?" No "sadly"; no "fobbed me off".
> 
> So, in your version DL has told Prairie absolutely everything she wants to
> know, hasn't held anything back, and is really happy and satisfied with
> what
> a great support and confidante she's been? Ba-loney.
> 
That would be ba-loney on wry? Where have I said she tells Prairie
everything? Your "sadly" and "fobbed me off" simply don't fit, no matter how
many times you try and spin that record. DL suggests a reasonable course of
action, then asks Prairie if there's any reason, from her pov, why this
can't happen. And they still leave together.

The following sentence reads: "She took the amulet Zoyd had given her ..."
Clearly the "she" in question is Prairie. However, I suggest that the reader
following on from the previous speech (by DL) might reasonably infer, before
reading the entire sentence, that "she" is DL. The amulet, as I've already
suggested, had a rich function as signifier, calling into play all its
earlier appearances in the text (ie in Ch5 and this chapter also). Then the
exchange on trust. The pronoun "she" has an ambiguity that is 'switched off'
as the sentence proceeds; just as "the McGarrett theme" is switched on and
off as the amulet moves in and out of range. The choice for Prairie, trust
DL or trust herself, is no choice at all, given the way the narrative
proceeds, but the exchange does switch on her role as a active agent. As
I've said before, the ordering of the narrative in this brief passage is
important; no single element can be assigned meaning out of context. Which
might (or might not) answer the question below:

> > The text
> > tracks the relationship being established, one based on equality and
> trust.
> 
> Where does it say that? Your interpretation is an incredibly selective
> one,

On the contrary I've tried to read the chapter as a whole, to consider the
way the narrative proceeds. You're the one picking out quotes, insisting
this or that sentence, out of context, has a meaning that is self-evident.

> and, for mine, it's a distortion of the text.

Your syntax is questionable here. But we'll let that pass.