He settles a little, at the lack of argument, but that's simultaneously more concerning.
"Every relationship is transactional," he echoes softly, "but not every transaction is simple. And no long-standing relationship is one single transaction - it is a constant back-and-forth of negotiations, some so minor or insubstantial that they don't warrant notice, some inherently one-sided, balanced in the long-term by the other person needing the same."
He smiles faintly. "And nearly none of them, especially between a guardian and their ward, are supposed to be repayable, but that is not a flaw in this system - it is inherent to accepting the position that you are taking the sum of it with no expectation of reimbursement."
"I'm not an accountant. I don't keep track of every transaction so I can hold the balance to account when it comes to paying taxes. The debt between a magician and apprentice can't fully be repaid. There's still an understanding of what it looks like when it is or isn't repaid."
There's always an expectation of reimbursement. In terms of literal taxes, if nothing else, but the emotional weight is there too.
Of course, you can always reject what's asked or take a different path - a relationship doesn't have to be repaid - but it's still there.
"Perhaps, but between a proper caretaker and their charge, the expectation isn't that you're raising someone that's expected to usurp you," he can't help commenting dryly. "There is the hope that they grow up to be something spectacular, of course, but most good parents would agree that their child being hale, hearty and above all happy is the most successful outcome to their raising them."
"That's not the expectation between master and apprentice, either." In a good relationship, the expectation can be that you're going to usurp someone else. Together.
"Right, I suppose goodness is subjective. And my thoughts on it meaning 'acting in- in what I consider to be a correct, moral capacity' is certainly different to how you would understand it."
"I don't believe you'd find a full consensus on what counts as good parenting, if you asked around here. Perhaps you might get some opinions on what counts as bad."
He knows, knows it's not a targeted dig, but it still makes his stomach tilt unpleasantly.
He keeps his tone even, though. "I can certainly put that to the network, if you're curious about the array of answers it gets. Though," he adds thoughtfully, "since it is just an opinion piece, you'd have to take the answers with a grain of salt if you're looking to make comparisons between your own situation and theirs. Broad strokes, probably, which I know you aren't fond of. Too many variables."
"You generally have to take answers with a grain of salt. Even for questions where the answer is factual. Still, information can be useful as information, even if it's not useful as a comparison."
Nathaniel has a long record of stuff he hates but has had to deal with. ...The vindictive lack of sympathy is better than some ways he's expressed the emotion.
"Do you think that's possible?" His curiosity is genuine. "Not that you can't phrase it inoffensively, but people are easily offended by things they take personally."
"Well- as I've said to... others, before. You can't please everyone. It's an old adage but it's no less relevant, especially on the Barge. I can certainly try and offend a minimum number of people, but I'm sure I'll have someone crying out 'how dare you act as though we all have parents to know how we should be treated', or something." He gives a huff, short and dry. "If people are going to be offended at something that isn't necessarily aimed at them, there's little I can do to stop them. But I can choose to be courteous to those who pay me the same respect."
"It's a well known saying, even across dimensions." It does strike him as a very Arthur thing to say, but he refrains from comment. "People often enjoy taking offense when they can. Here, there are probably a number of people who aren't able to 'back home' so embrace the opportunity, however inappropriate." It's not an impulse Nathaniel feels, but he can imagine why people would. Even if he thinks it's stupid.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-22 06:56 am (UTC)He had thought that Arthur would object if he phrased it that way - though he couldn't say exactly why.
"...I know."
There are very few other ways to repay genuine affection. One of the few ways, in a relationship like theirs.
What that means for Nathaniel is a lot more complicated.
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-22 07:43 am (UTC)"Every relationship is transactional," he echoes softly, "but not every transaction is simple. And no long-standing relationship is one single transaction - it is a constant back-and-forth of negotiations, some so minor or insubstantial that they don't warrant notice, some inherently one-sided, balanced in the long-term by the other person needing the same."
He smiles faintly. "And nearly none of them, especially between a guardian and their ward, are supposed to be repayable, but that is not a flaw in this system - it is inherent to accepting the position that you are taking the sum of it with no expectation of reimbursement."
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-23 02:29 am (UTC)There's always an expectation of reimbursement. In terms of literal taxes, if nothing else, but the emotional weight is there too.
Of course, you can always reject what's asked or take a different path - a relationship doesn't have to be repaid - but it's still there.
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-24 12:35 pm (UTC)Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 06:53 am (UTC)"'Good' is a very... open ended word."
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:04 am (UTC)"Right, I suppose goodness is subjective. And my thoughts on it meaning 'acting in- in what I consider to be a correct, moral capacity' is certainly different to how you would understand it."
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:08 am (UTC)Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:14 am (UTC)He keeps his tone even, though. "I can certainly put that to the network, if you're curious about the array of answers it gets. Though," he adds thoughtfully, "since it is just an opinion piece, you'd have to take the answers with a grain of salt if you're looking to make comparisons between your own situation and theirs. Broad strokes, probably, which I know you aren't fond of. Too many variables."
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:20 am (UTC)Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:34 am (UTC)He hates this, for the record, and he knows Nathaniel knows why.
"I'll put up a post at some point in the near future, when I work how to not offend some half of the Barge in doing so."
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:41 am (UTC)"Do you think that's possible?" His curiosity is genuine. "Not that you can't phrase it inoffensively, but people are easily offended by things they take personally."
Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:50 am (UTC)Re: cw child abuse
Date: 2023-12-28 08:57 am (UTC)