http://myblimpisbigger.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
myblimpisbigger.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
tvk2011-09-19 12:40 pm
myblimpisbigger.livejournal.com) wrote in tvk2011-09-19 12:40 pm
Entry tags:
Two [Video/Backdated to Event]: In Which Klaus Has Feelings Because Plurk Wanted It
[After talking to Ingrid, Klaus is feeling more than a little bit... off. For a man usually utterly unflappable, this sudden influx of ~feelings~ isn't usual or welcome.
He isn't a bad parent. He worked for years to make sure that his son was independent and strong. He did his very best to ensure that when, finally, one of the assassins actually hit their mark, Gil would be able to run the country efficiently. Wasn't that the important thing? Keeping Gil alive was far more important than keeping him happy. Dead children can't adore their fathers.
Only now, he's not so sure.]
I have a question for you, Prospero. An entirely hypothetical question.
Say there is a man. He is in charge of a country -- a large, volatile, war-torn country. He was welcomed as a savior when he first took power but almost immediately fell out of favor when he actually began to make decisions and it was discovered that he could not, in fact, please everyone. This man has a son.
He is, naturally, worried for his son's safety. He himself is the victim of several assassination attempts a month. He can handle them. A young child could not. Is it therefore acceptable for him to sever his ties with his child and keep the relationship a secret in order to protect the son and ensure that he grows up independent of the stress of being the heir to the throne, as it were? Especially considering that he did intend to tell him when he was old enough to handle it?
[Entirely hypothetical. Yes. SO HYPOTHETICAL BITCHES DON'T KNOW.]
He isn't a bad parent. He worked for years to make sure that his son was independent and strong. He did his very best to ensure that when, finally, one of the assassins actually hit their mark, Gil would be able to run the country efficiently. Wasn't that the important thing? Keeping Gil alive was far more important than keeping him happy. Dead children can't adore their fathers.
Only now, he's not so sure.]
I have a question for you, Prospero. An entirely hypothetical question.
Say there is a man. He is in charge of a country -- a large, volatile, war-torn country. He was welcomed as a savior when he first took power but almost immediately fell out of favor when he actually began to make decisions and it was discovered that he could not, in fact, please everyone. This man has a son.
He is, naturally, worried for his son's safety. He himself is the victim of several assassination attempts a month. He can handle them. A young child could not. Is it therefore acceptable for him to sever his ties with his child and keep the relationship a secret in order to protect the son and ensure that he grows up independent of the stress of being the heir to the throne, as it were? Especially considering that he did intend to tell him when he was old enough to handle it?
[Entirely hypothetical. Yes. SO HYPOTHETICAL BITCHES DON'T KNOW.]
no subject
I've never heard of that, but it sounds like a factor that would change the argument completely.