Our Shared Shelf discussion

Hello everyone,
Battleface stages two woman (a journalist and a "medecine" discussing surgery (specific type of surgery) at first and then we realize the journalist is not a journalist but someone working for the government in attempt to recruit people and to send them in Iraq.
Little by little the tensions increase and manipulation and threat occur.

For those who read that writing, what do you think about it? Do you think manipulation is a possible resort for the benefit of a majority or do you think it should not be used?

Personnaly, I cannot stand threat and manipulation. In that play, Camilla puts a knife Ablah throat and use the emotional link between Ablah and her son to force her accepting the favour (I should say demand). She even threats Ablah by saying that some woman have been arrested because of specific poetry topic. In other words, no real choice is offer to Ablah since if she decides to not agree she will not be let in peace.

In other words, probably more direct, is "necessary" evil acceptable?

My answer is no but I'd like to hear about others' thoughts.

Please feel free to talk about other points regarding this play ;)

I think it is very easy to be self righteous and stand on principle when one is sitting at home reading a book. In real life, people often have to choose between two or more evils - there is no painless solution. The survival instinct is extremely strong and most people will do what they think they have to in order to survive (Some people would say that suicide or self-harm is immoral, so there's that) Nobody knows how they would really behave in a situation until they are in that situation. I don't think you can judge until you have been there.

Perhaps Camilla herself has been threatened with death if she does not successfully recruit Ablah. Perhaps the person who threatened her has also been threatened, and so on, and so on. It begs the question of why we sometimes expect some people to adhere to a higher moral standard than we expect of other people.

As an aside, I think there's a feminist element to the concept of manipulation. Traditionally, women are socialised not to assert themselves, and from that comes the stereotype of the catty, manipulative woman who gets her way through deceit rather than by asking for what she wants. Often, this is about something like stealing someone else's husband, but here we see it in a different context. I wonder how the scene would be perceived if the characters were men. Would a male Camilla simply put a knife to the male Ablah's throat without all the preliminary chit chat?

I really enjoyed this play and it was actually a highlight of the collection for me. I thought it created an interesting dilemma. Do we as mothers (and fathers) have to compromise and sometimes (as in this case) entirely dispose of our principles and moral compass in order to protect our families? I personally think that Ablah made the right choice in a way although I would be interested to know what happened next.

I think the threats could serve as a metaphor for the power that we as a western country (Britain, but also other western powers) hold over the Middle East particularly. A lot of people in Muslim countries are suffering at the hands of the West and I think that Camilla making such a stark threat of 'you cooperate or your son will suffer' is a very good illustration of the current state of foreign affairs.

Indeed, this play is quite political. I am not sure if I want to know what happens next. Usually I really enjoy this type of ending because it is not an ending but an opening and it allows many questions 😉

To be honest, I'm not really a fan of fiction with a strong political component, as the author doesn't have to adhere to the rigorous standards of research and fact-checking that you would expect from a non-fiction work. (Of course, non-fiction itself contains inherent bias, but it tends to be more open to challenge and debate. It's harder to argue when the scenario you are discussing isn't meant to have happened in real life in the first place.)

For some reason I didn't enjoy this writing as much as I enjoyed other pieces in the book. However, I have read it and to answer the question I don't think manipulation is acceptable in any way, shape or form. Even if it is for 'the benefit of the majority'. Who defines benefit and who is this majority? (I sure hope it's not Trump or ISIS). In a perfect world every one would have the same idea as necessary evil and act accordingly but in the real world necessary evil is not the same for everybody. Unless we are OK with everyone taking justice into their own hands and carrying out evil to benefit the majority, it should not be acceptable.

I did enjoy reading Battleface and it left me wondering the same thing, were the threats really necessary? It seemed to me the situation could have been easily avoided, Ablah refused, why press the issue? So much for world peace! And it makes you wonder if the son joined the Ministry out of his own accord. This manipulation games will only aggravate the situation and that's something that people in power don't seem to realise.

"Personally, I cannot stand threat and manipulation. In that play, Camilla puts a knife Ablah throat and use the emotional link between Ablah and her son to force her accepting the favour (I should say demand). She even threats Ablah by saying that some woman have been arrested because of specific poetry topic. In other words, no real choice is offer to Ablah since if she decides to not agree she will not be let in peace."

I don't think that such a thing as 'necessary evil'. You are confusing tough love with being profoundly wicked. Emotional blackmails and threats are more of the former than latter. Situational.

"For those who read that writing, what do you think about it? Do you think manipulation is a possible resort for the benefit of a majority or do you think it should not be used?"

Well, if manipulation is used in a large scale, it is indoctrination. If you are being instilled ideas and attitude to perform and think at a higher level, it is a cognitive strategy. I think that it's a necessity to fine tune people to see things in your perspective. In the hands of a competent, it benefits the majority. If you are being influenced to be a radical, you'll be destructive to yourself and society. To change people's thinking takes courage and patience. I'd say, use it but use it wisely.