Reynardine plothole?

[todd]

I don't know if this is a plothole or not, but:

In Chapter Nine, Eglamore says that he can't confiscate Reynardine in his wolf plush doll body, because if he did, Annie would no longer own it, her hold over him would be broken, and Reynardine would be free to continue his rampaging and body-hopping once more.

This morning, I wondered whether, if the Court *did* confiscate Reynardine, ownership of his body would pass to it, and so he'd still be safely trapped in it - only now under the Court's control rather than Annie's (and presumably with the bismuth symbol rather than the antimony symbol on his head).

I can think of two possible solutions to this one:

I. Confiscation might not be recognized as a true state of property transference under etheric law.

2. Much of Annie's hold over Reynardine comes from her etheric nature; a person who owned the wolf-doll but didn't have as strong an etheric talent as Annie might not be able to keep Reynardine confined to it.

[Mr Pitchfork]

I don't see the hole.

[Mezzaphor]

Considering that theft of the doll would also break the contract of ownership and free Rey, I suspect it's just that under etheric law, ownership can't be taken. It has to be given.

[Adam]

May 5, 2010 23:28:38 GMT Mezzaphor said:

Considering that theft of the doll would also break the contract of ownership and free Rey, I suspect it's just that under etheric law, ownership can't be taken. It has to be given.

Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case: 275118037.

Personally, I like to think that Annie's hold over Rey comes at least in part from his failed attempt to possess her; sort of a karmic retribution, or debt. Whether it's purely in Rey's mind, i.e., a guilty conscience, or is etherically enforced would be ambiguous.

[Aris Katsaris]

This morning, I wondered whether, if the Court *did* confiscate Reynardine, ownership of his body would pass to it, and so he'd still be safely trapped in it - only now under the Court's control rather than Annie's (and presumably with the bismuth symbol rather than the antimony symbol on his head).

I'm guessing the answer is that, Court can confiscate a doll, it can't "confiscate" a living being. The living being entered a binding contract of servitude with Annie by an act of volition, when it entered the doll Annie owned. Though the court can confiscate a mere doll, it doesn't have any right to transfer Reynardine's unspoken contract. Taking away the doll with just break the contract, not transfer it.

Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case: 275118037.

The linked answer, Adam, says that ownership would be broken, not transferred.

It's also possible that all concepts of ownership must coincide for the hold over Reynardine to remain certain. Currently the doll is unambiguously owned by Annie. If the court claims it however, what Annie and the creator of the doll both felt (that the doll belongs to Annie) would conflict with actual possession and societal law (the doll belonging to court). The concept of ownership would thus be broken, because it'd be split in half.

Let's remember moreover that we're dealing with the ether here. Etheric tenet is "don't overthink it, it works the way it works". Trying to establish very specific laws for it is like trying to tame a wild creature. Last time that happened, it ended up with Coyote creating a ravine.

[Adam]

May 6, 2010 9:16:27 GMT Aris Katsaris said:

This morning, I wondered whether, if the Court *did* confiscate Reynardine, ownership of his body would pass to it, and so he'd still be safely trapped in it - only now under the Court's control rather than Annie's (and presumably with the bismuth symbol rather than the antimony symbol on his head).

I'm guessing the answer is that, Court can confiscate a doll, it can't "confiscate" a living being. The living being entered a binding contract of servitude with Annie by an act of volition, when it entered the doll Annie owned. Though the court can confiscate a mere doll, it doesn't have any right to transfer Reynardine's unspoken contract. Taking away the doll with just break the contract, not transfer it.

Actually, this doesn't seem to be the case: 275118037.

The linked answer, Adam, says that ownership would be broken, not transferred.

It's also possible that all concepts of ownership must coincide for the hold over Reynardine to remain certain. Currently the doll is unambiguously owned by Annie. If the court claims it however, what Annie and the creator of the doll both felt (that the doll belongs to Annie) would conflict with actual possession and societal law (the doll belonging to court). The concept of ownership would thus be broken, because it'd be split in half.

Let's remember moreover that we're dealing with the ether here. Etheric tenet is "don't overthink it, it works the way it works". Trying to establish very specific laws for it is like trying to tame a wild creature. Last time that happened, it ended up with Coyote creating a ravine.

You're right, I think I was misremembering an earlier post. In this case, I don't see how "confiscation" differs from theft. The Court doesn't have any kind of claim to Annie's possessions. They could make a case for the custody of Rey, if he had actually been convicted of a crime. (Does the Court have a legal system?) That still wouldn't give them the rights to the doll though, so their only way to enforce it would be confiscate the doll and then try to recapture Rey.

[todd]

Probably the only argument on the confiscation's side is that the confiscators would be the authority figures at the Court, under whose rules Annie has (tacitly) agreed to abide when enrolling at the school. But if they take the doll from her without her being allowed any say in the matter, it certainly wouldn't count as her voluntarily giving Reynardine up.

The Donlans and Eglamore ask Annie to turn Reynardine over to them in Chapter Seven, which she refuses to do. Presumably if she had agreed to it, the hold over Reynardine would have been transferred to them. Since she refused, of course, that door was closed - as Eglamore acknowledged in Chapter Nine.

[the bandit]

I think the Word of Tom re:stolen-scenario answers this.

But if I were to provide other rationalizations, it should also be pointed out that the idea of the Court gaining ownership by confiscating the doll hinges on an anthropomorphization of the Court that makes sense in language but not in pragmatic results of confiscating the doll. Id est, if the Court confiscated the doll, who owns it? Answer: Nobody.

I also believe the idea of "tacit agreement to contract" bears much merit, i.e., a confiscation breaks the contract without binding Rey to a new one.