Question #6 June 22 - July 7: Chapters 13 - 16, Epilogue, Author's Note

Adelia encounters many people who are, as she describes to Brother Gilbert, "hateful"—Roger of Acton, Prioress Joan, Sir Gervase—while the two who are ultimately revealed as the killers come across as genteel, even virtuous. Does this dichotomy hold any symbolic meaning?

It's a wee bit heavy-handed, but I think so...Miss Franklin seems to put the pretty faces on her villains because she's reminding us that surface judgments should be just that: About surfaces. The tendency of humankind to think that pretty is a reliable indicator of good character is one of the evergreen tropes of storytelling. Dangerous Liaisons, Tristram Shandy, The Aspern Papers, An American Tragedy, Bonfire of the Vanities, need I go on?

It's not too different from today, actually. According to Gavin de Becker, who has written extensively on this topic, if there is a "profile" of a pedophile, it's a well-groomed, well-spoken pillar-of-society type person that you'd never suspect on the surface.

The old adages - "a wolf in sheep's clothing" and "Beauty is only skin deep" applied here. I feel that as a society we have a tendency to look very superficially at people. IF there are tall and good-looking, beautiful, then they must be good. If they are short and plain they must be bad or not so good. At the time of the setting book, if you were in Religious orders (nun, monk, priest) you were automatically a "good" and virtuous person.

I believe that Ms Franklin is trying to show us a lesson that we need to look deeper into a person's behaviors, attitudes, and actions before we judge them to be good or bad.

Besides the ideas of beauty, I think another concept here is that "good" and "evil" are not absolute qualities. Very few people are totally good, or totally evil. Sir Gervase, for example, fights for the "good guys", yet is, for all accounts and purposes, a nasty piece of work. His mistreatment of Adelia shows the reader that just because someone is "good", he or she is not necessarily kind or moral. We all have a little "good" and a little "evil" in us - in the end, it is the side on which we choose to act that is important.

We also might look at an attitude that still persisted in very religious societies that if you were ugly, misshapen, diseased, etc, it was seen as a punishment from God and therefore you couldn't possibly have been "good". OTOH, beautiful and talented people were seen as being specially chosen and blessed and therefore couldn't possibly be "BAD"

>message 4

I agree with your thoughts about religious orders and that they were automatically virtuous, I was in a state of shock when i thought Sister Veronica might get away just becaouse she was a demure looking nun.

I think in society we asumed the pretty and the well mannered are a cut above and aren't capable of evil, only to find out how wrong we are.

i agree with what everyone has said here....the characters labelled "hateful", for the most part, act that way.....it's an Overt thing. whereas the true Villains here have excellent cover...Nun and Knight...albeit Insane...said Insanity does a good job of masking the inner Rot...Pretty is as pretty does...but Insanity wins out every time...

I think that those above are right that the choice did have a symbolic meaning, but I also think that those hateful people provided some pretty good red herrings.
--BJ