2-3-4 Challenge Book Discussions #1 discussion

French officers who were prisoners of war were paroled because of the belief that they shared an honor code. What do you think of the concept? Was it more cruel to give these men limited freedom?

Perhaps it was, but when we think of the current use of "parole," with its origin in the French term, giving one's word to abide by the authority's directives as a condition not to be imprisoned further, I think it was just.

I wonder how many of our society have realized the origin and meaning of being on parole, a requirement to behave honorably?

I thought this was very interesting and something that I did not know before.

In some ways, it was very cruel to give them a taste of freedom but curtail their movements so harshly. I guess with the war still ongoing, they couldn't just send them home.

It also says something about the English upper class's sense of superiority - they simply accept that a nobleman or an officer would have the same sense of honor as they do.

Charlene, thanks for that background! Lauren, that's excellent context.

I thought it cruel to hold freedom in this manner. They released them but confined them to a country that was foreign, unfamiliar and hostile. Arceneaux seemed incredibly lonely and there was something poetic about his death. It seemed to take him out of his misery, especially after his grief and guilt over Gabrielle's death. Such a shame he died without knowing he had nothing to do with it.

It was either that or prison. I mean they had to do something with them. They were prisoners of war. It seemed being on parole was nicer than being stuck in a prison cell or hanging. Did the French do the same with the English prisoners they had?