Friday, January 31, 2014

Chocolat Integrity--It is ALL Connected


First, Nikk said a thing.
Then Than read it and had a little sumpthin' sumpthin' to say.
Then we watched CHOCOLAT and met a character named Rue...or was it Roux?
Read, think, comment and discuss:
"nicholas mi---you don't need my last name. the one with the Merchant of Venice nose said...
I'm going to leave this post as some mindless fun with my patented Modified Socratic Method (i.e., raise questions because you have no answers).

Mayhaps this will spark a litt'oh idear in someone who reads it--preferably me--and a post less vacuous will follow. Yes, consider that a formal notice that you're wrist deep in a vacuous post.


When a society is integrated, the individuals each form an integral part. In fact, any sort of aggregate collection is just a whole buncha indervid'ls amalgamated. The structural integrity of the society depends upon the behaviors that prevail. There's Than's isocracy (by the way, O how an actual isocracy would suck eggs!). I was hoping to spar with Andrew, but I rather like his idea of common threads that bind together society. Plus it's the bastard's birthday.

I won't boast about how good I am in the kitchen (apophasis!), but I will invoke a culinary analogy. You can make a variety of different soups from what's called a roux. At its most simple, it's flour and butter that forms into a paste and creates a base. You add yer veggies and liquid and good stuff and it binds the soup together--WHEW! thank God that intersected somehow.

Cripes, I want to make soup now.

In any case, something else to think about is what is this common thread that binds different societies together? What is the shared roux? Maybe they use cornstarch.

Insert Great American Melting Pot Crock o' Cliche here.

--n. wm. m.
January 6, 2014 at 10:40 PM"
"Than Schrauth said...
There's something to be said for using the blog as a tool of procrastination, one finds things that one never would have. What Nikk said is an amazing metaphor that has piqued my curiosity enough to write something.

If I may put forward a paradigm shift that Nikk only just made me realize, we've (the people's whose comments I've read or opinions heard, sorry if I missed someone else seeing this first)only been looking at the systemic integrity that Mrs. C threw at us and so have been trying to extrapolate the definition of integrity to fit a society. Nikk's alternative wording, structural integrity, is a term that is generally reserved for buildings, but is, in my oh so humble opinion, a better way of looking at systemic integrity. If a building has structural integrity you can be confidant it won't fall to pieces when you clean your gutters (five points to Gryffindor if you see the double language). The creation of systemic integrity is not the reason the pieces are put where they are but it is a necessary result without which the pieces are meaningless.

Now time to prove the plebs wrong as any pretentious prick ought to. If we look at integrity as the ability of a society to hold itself together to achieve whatever its primary purpose is (the point of a restaurant isn't to stay standing and book clubs exist to read books as a group, their integrity is not the purpose of their existence)then it stands to reason that as we grope towards integrity, the ability to keep our s*!# together, it never changes and is not dependent on the time period. When Adhemar and his crew hijacked nobility their goal was to keep the system together so they killed the peasants, just as the KKK lynched people to maintain the status quo. These systems inevitably fell apart because they were not integrated and could never be until they changed, the world kept groping towards true integrity.

For my grand finale I do believe tying this into the constitution is in order: "We the people... in order to form a more perfect union...". The Revolution, amendments and civil rights movement have been tools we have, as a society, used to rid ourselves of the elements that divide us to create a more perfect union.
January 20, 2014 at 10:52 PM
 "

36 comments:

Andrew Mignoli said...

First, I must apologize for my complete lack of existence last class, January 31. I was putting all my concentration in preventing myself from vomiting, and not to worry, it wasn't illness that ailed me. Second, in address to Than, I am no more a plebeian than you are, and I believe elevating yourself as such is rather ironic given your own definition of integrity, but don't fret, we'll get to that. Also yes,I broke the rules, I went ahead and read Than's post before commenting myself. So after all of that being said, I will continue onto the actual post. First addressing Than's point before moving onto my own. I understand what he means when he says that any system will eventually fall apart without integrity (absolute monarchies, dictatorships, feudal kingdoms...). The people realize what's happening, eventually rebel, and the whole system comes down. However, looking at our own "integrated," or at least partially integrated society, I am still not on board. It doesn't matter what you label the government: democracy, republic, monarchy, oligarchy, etc, they are all just masks. The only thing different about a monarchy and a democracy is that they use a different method to put the people in their place. As i said in my previous post, it is every western man's desire to crush those beneath him, and use their heads as stepping stones to make himself more powerful. This isn't going to change no matter what form of government you put in place. A perfect example of this is Steve Jobs. A rather admired figure, but one must look at what he did to get where he ended up. Answer, he lied, cheated people, and was a complete bastard to everyone around him. Don't believe me, watch the movie about him, or read one of the many books about him. Anyway, the point is, just look around you. Corporations have so much influence they can practically control the government, the NSA is getting more and more powerful that eventually you won't be able to sleep without getting spied on, and over time the wealth gap has widened so much that the top 1% of our society hold all the wealth (graphic- http://tinyurl.com/njlo8tg). How is one supposed to see this as integrity? Also, it can be noted that autocratic societies have proven to be quite stable despite their downfalls. The Ottoman Empire lasted for 600 years, democracy still has a lot of catching up to do. Finally, we all know the outcome of the famous Roman Republic, it fell apart and turned into an autocratic empire, this is the inevitable fate of any democracy. It is impossible to fight man's natural desire for power. Call it integrity or not it doesn't matter, with everything going on in our country and the rest of the world it's a lot more realistic to see 1984 in our future than it is to see a perfect integrated utopia.

Andrew Mignoli said...

Wait, was that not Than's post, or was that on an old blog and i never bothered to read it. Well it appears i'm the first post. I see, i was actually meant to read Than's post.

Matt Civilette said...

Along with Nikk, I have found the same connection with Roux. My cooking for the super bowl involved making a roux--combining flour, cheese, onions, and peppers, . Basically, the roux is a means to combine many different ingredients into one heterogeneous mixture.
Roux in Chocolat is influential in Vienne and Anuk's life, although he isn't the reason that the mother and daughter are integrated into the ways of the town. Roux is why Vienne and Anuk can settle down in the town (he releases then from their "fated" ways), but beyond that, I can't see how he fits into being like a roux.

Anonymous said...

I'm so impressed with these comments. Matt, Andrew, Nikk, and Than have said things that I have not even taken into consideration until now. I never thought about Nikk's analogy, which now makes perfect sense after watching Chocolat. And Andrew with the facts, I am amazed. My view point has shifted. Let me reflect before I comment again. I just wanted to note how thoroughly impressed I am.
-Ali Coughlin

Brianna Thompson said...

On the contrary to Matt's post, I can see how one may perceive Johnny Depp's character (Rue/'Roo/Roux) as roux-like. Although he is not the reason specifically for Vienne and Anuk's integration into the town, he is partially responsible for the town becoming somewhat of a melting pot. Roux is the bridge which fills the gap, forming a link between the townspeople and the gypsies. He and Vienne create an environment in which people are able to accept each other, and obviate themselves from the population of the town that is not progressing toward integrity.

Matt Civilette said...

To Brie, I agree that Roux has some part in changing the town, but I see his involvement as indirect. He has the greatest affect on Vienne, who in turn, changes the town. I can see your connection there and I can agree with it, although I was hoping that there is something more concrete regarding Roux himself.

Brianna Thompson said...

In relation to Than's argument, I completely disagree. If the world kept (or keeps) groping toward integrity, then wouldn't things such as racism, sexism, and homophobia be in decline until they are virtually nonexistent? There is no way for society as a whole to achieve integrity, in this sense of the word. If society was, in fact, striving to reach an integral state, why are salaries of women lower than those of men? Why is same sex marriage a controversial topic? In a utopian society wouldn't one be able to love whomever they do, without being ridiculed by people with opposing views? The internal need for some people to label others as beneath themselves is the reason why society will never be able to attain integrity, as a whole. Yes, there are people within a society who have integrity, but not enough for society as a whole to be labeled as integrated.

yerp, mhmm, nicholas michalski said...

AH, and thus I will blossom (or perhaps lapse/decay?) from a half-arsed Socrates into a wannabe Diogenes of Sinope.

Andrew's viewpoint is, unsurprisingly, incisive, and you can't refute all the god-awful crap that the rich do: yadda yadda income inequality yadda yadda corporate personhood yadda yadda campaign finance ('n' I ain't even bein' blasé).

Indeed, just the other day, I made a perfectly integrated soup. Alas, no roux!

We are headed for 1984 (or perhaps Brave New World...dig Huxley, but never did finish that one...)the way things are going, but we have been for years. In The Knight's Tale-era, weren't we headed for...I dunno...a non-satirical The Prince? Movements like Occupy Wallstreet, albe-they impotent, show a dissatisfaction among the public. Ah, brings me back to Magna Carta days.

In any case, I don't know how far the roux metaphor goes, since I conveniently crafted it without knowing what it means. As far as soups be concerned, rouxeauxes can help things along, but are not necessary.

Obfuscation complete!

--n.wm.m.

Nick Arcoraci said...

So based off of the new information that a roux is basically the glue that hold together a soup, Johney Depp's character makes all that much more sense. Roux holds the story together because he allows for a medium to be presented to the local towns people to interact and include one and other. Had it not been for Roux and his connection with Vienne, his compatriots would never have been given the opportunity to interact with the local towns people that came to Armonde's party. In addition, at this party we see Josephine interacting with both the river rats and her fellow towns people. This moment, while somewhat seamingly none important, actually tells us a lot about her transformation as an individual, due to the fact that she is finally beginning to be integrated into the community for which she has lived her whole life. Prior, Josephine's family had been shunned by the town due to her father's involvement with the Germans. later on she herself was shunned by her husband. Because of this, Roux, his timing, and his boat play a huge role when it comes into integration of more than just himself, but others in the town as well.

yerp, mhmm, nicholas michalski said...

WOAH. I could SWEAR I changed that. Not that anybody would care besides me...nor should they! but I meant to say "charlatan Diogenes" rather than merely wannabe. Oy.

--nikk

Nick Arcoraci said...

After going back and reading some of my fellow classmates ideas and theories about geopolitics I can conclude that there are many different and valid points being brought up. Going off the utopia idea I believe that A true equal society such as a utopia is inherently impossible due to the fact that the very concept is a product of the human brain which is flawed in nature and would corrupt the very idea of equality.

Anna said...

I really like the idea that Roux is an ingredient in soups. As Mrs. C said it can be used to create the base of the soup. I think this mirrors Roux's actions in the movie because in a sense he does hold the town together. Roux is given several different types of people, his ingredients if you will, to work with. These people are of all ages and backgrounds. Roux takes these people and gracefully brings them together. The birthday party on the boat is a good example of this. Just like any good chef once Roux brings the town's people (ingredients) together they work in harmony.

cody smith said...

nailed it.^^

Anna said...

I agree with Brie that we will never fully achieve integrity as a society. Human error will make achieving a perfect society almost impossible. It seems that no matter how hard we humans try, we always seem to mess something up. However, Roux is responsible for making his own little world of integrity with some of the people for the town. Trying to achieve integrity on a worldly level would be a lot different than achieving integrity in a small town.

Cody Cunningham said...

Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends..... Perhaps because our society's view is that there actually is no common view, and we can never fully get along and agree? Also, after noting the different meanings of roux, specifically where it acts as a base to bind a soup together, I can now see why Johnny Depp can be seen as Vienne's "base." He acted as something concrete for Vienne to hang on too, especially after he returned. I'm sure he also had something to hang on to or in as well, but more about rectangles and weapons later. Roux gave Vienne Roche a means to really stick it to the Mayor, mainly by holding a party on his river boat. He gave Roche a way to branch out and expand, just like the rouz, as a base, is the thing that binds soups together and allows more ingredients to be added.

Abby K. said...

Ok, so when I looked up the definition of 'Roux' I found that it is a sticky mixture that is used to bind things together.
Next I thought 'What did Johnny Depp's character bind?'. Mrs. C helped us remember why we as kids created imaginary friends (if you did). Anouk created hers because she hated her mom for taking her from place to place and she was lonely. I think that when Johnny Depp went from Rue to 'Roo that made him also become Roux.
I don't really think that Rue is the reason that the mother-daughter duo were accepted by the town. The townspeople didn't decide to let them in until they were ready and had figured out their issues first.
The 'magic' of Vienna's chocolates had helped them truly see themselves. She knew how to bring closure to them whether it was helping people move on, get past insecurities, heal a marriage, or just open up. Once that they learned that change and listening to ideas different from their own wasn't a bad thing they welcomed her.
So as a society they changed their goal/motive so that they could strive towards integrity once again.
... thinking...
I guess Vienna is also the roux, because I mean she came into this town and saw that it was a mess. She's the reason the town saw a new light, she became the new thing that binded them together just as they were falling apart.

Abby K. said...

So I could kind of see how Rue was Roux but wasn't able to see it that clearly. I completely forgot about the scene on the boat, Nick thanks for bringing it up and Annar for helping me understand it better.

Aubrey C said...

Abby, I looked up the translation of "roux" after reading your comments. When the word "vent" is added, the phrase translates roughly to "red wind" or "warm wind". I thought it was interesting that the north wind is described as cold, while a rough translation of Roux's name is "warm wind". Several of the comments refer to Roux/Rue/Roo as the balance or binding of Vienne's life. I think the idea of the warm wind and the cold wind helps to support that idea. We were told in class that Rue is the reason that the film doesn't end with Vienne moving once again. He is the balancing force. As Mrs. Corcoran said, each character is an integral part of the puzzle.

Mrs. C said...

First, forest for the trees, folks--throw your gaze out and away from that one tree trunk in front of you and look at the freakin' forest!

Of *course* there are bad guys. Of *course* there are dark times--and we seem to be occupying one of them right this very moment. But pull your gaze BACK--landscape, Will urged in A KNIGHT'S TALE--the bigger picture, the long view--WE ARE PROGRESSING TO THE GOOD OF *ALL*.

And let's get a little clearer on what a roux is and what it does: Two components, just twos: a fat (butter, olive oil, lard, whatever) and a starch (flour, tapioca, corn starch). These are cooked together until at least the raw is gone from the starch. Then the resulting paste is whisked into a liquid base (water, broth, wine, milk) and what is rendered is a silken sauce. That sauce naps any additional ingredients and serves as the component that links them, while allowing them to maintain individual integrity.

When you get hung up on "soup" it is like you are once again staring at that one tree trunk; broaden your gaze! Metaphors tell BIG truths, not scrawny little withered ones.

nicholas michalski said...

Righty-oh, then. I was mistaken in the interpretation of my original metaphor in that I thought the roux represented something that maintained integrity...a fundamental unifier that foments integrity. Now, I see that I was errogenously erroneous indeed.

No, roux IS itself integration, not something that promotes it per se. As the Goddess illumined in her most recent addendum in the comments, the two very different things that constitute a roux, once rouxitinized, are one cohesive product, yet--and here's the rub--still maintain their individuality. The flour (for example) still maintains its flourness (with the icky raw taste hopefully cooked out by now) and the butter is still buttery. They are still individual components, but have been integrated into something much more.


Andrew, Kale, Brie, and I got a rousing back-and-forth going in biology class, and I hope that they (the contrarians especially) bring it to de blog.

--n.wm.m.

Daniel Cross said...

Fun Fact: when you google “structural integration” you get pictures of people feeling each other up (google auto-made integrity into integration).

If we tell ourselves the truth through story, the act of telling a story, and we perceive our own unique truths, and we have integrity within ourselves and we can see the integrity in someone else, and Pluto is no longer a planet because of valid reasons (it’s smaller than our moon), then clearly this 18 year old is able to piece everything together, easily even.

I’m totally kidding. I’m not following Corcoran, sorry.

I get how Rue acted as a binder for the town, how he was a catalyst for bringing them all together because if he wasn’t there then it would have ended with a You vs Me thing going on. I understand that.

I don’t see how Isocracy has anything to do with anything. I think it was a word that was just thrown around, to be honest.

I haven’t seen a good definition of what structural integrity is, an example, so I haven’t been able to give it a good thought since I have no background on what it is. The same with systemic.

I can see where Corcoran is saying that we are progressing to the good of all, there’s a lot to back it up which goes against what Andrew believes. But there’s plenty of negative to counterbalance that, it’s just on how you view things. You could view things from Adhemar’s time and be like, “oh hell yeah, look at how great things are,” or you can see things like Andrew and be like, “oh hell to the now. Freedom for all, damn right I support it.”
(I didn’t understand, so I read the comments before posting).

Maybe I could be more helpful if more people commented with something thoughtful to add, and not the same things that have already been said. Until then, I’m out.

Andrew Mignoli said...

I will comment again to clarify my original post (i'm not sure if any of Mrs.C post was directed toward my comment) but i am indeed focusing on the whole here. The examples i made were not meant to stand alone, they were merely evidence to support my greater point. That point being that its rather preposterous to even consider that our society is moving toward a greater "good," when the people whom make up the society are inherently, "integrity-incompatible." Also no, if you look at a timeline i see absolutely no evidence that our society, from the days of chivalry to modern times, has moved toward integrity. Sure the form of government may have changed, sure we are no longer peasants to a lord, and sure we have homogenized quite a bit, but our society is still controlled by the same old nobility. It just looks different now because instead of being King Richard the third it takes the form of a corporation etc. You could make the argument that the fact that gays, blacks, women, other religions, etc are slowly becoming incorporated and accepted by all is evidence that we are moving toward integrity, but that argument misses the bigger picture. The bigger picture is we still have people above and beneath, people exploiting and people being exploited, and my point with the whole chronological wealth gap thing is that its getting a lot worse, not better. The only true civilizations that had integrity were native Americans, both north and south. People that would literally willingly have their heart ripped out of their body so that others could go on. Unfortunately we westerners killed all of them, point made. Its just a physical inherent impossibility for us to reach a state of integrated goodness the way we are.

JeelR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JeelR said...

Integrity is a union of what most of us want. In a society where there are many different people of many different demographics, we have the integrity/culture of a society. Roux is a sauce that that we can mix anything into and provides a binding force, no matter how different the vegetable, in order to make a whole; we have different people to make and maintain a society. Sure we can't make and maintain a perfect society in which everyone is an equal, but we can always strive towards that end goal. Roux does exactly that when it tries to make the individual pieces in the soup stand out while binding all of them together.

JeelR said...

There is a second definition for Rue,"any strongly scented plant of the genus Ruta, especially R. graveolens, having yellow flowers and leaves formerly used in medicine." I feel like this definition also connects with the character and the movie because he has a strong personality; he was a free river gypsy who stayed in a town full of strict church people and even then did not stumble in how he acted. Rue was also the one to provide Vianne support whenever she needed it which makes him Vianne's medicine in a way.

Ryan M said...

Roux is a thickening agent in soup which seems fitting for his name. He not only thickens the plot, but he also solidifies Vienne and Anuk's place in the town. Roux holds things together by offering a means to integrate Vienne and Anuk into the town. The "roux" of society is man's own free will. This is what is expected to hold together society simply because--surprise surprise--mankind is society. However, the problem arises that humans have an inherent predilection toward greed. All animals do! I'm not saying that we as a people cannot overcome this; I am saying that we cannot COMPLETELY overcome this obstacle. Nature tends to increase in entropy at all times. This means that a building that at first had structural integrity, will eventually break down. Likewise, society will succumb to humans' inherent nature. Fortunately for us, we as a society are not completely bound to this human nature and have developed some sense of integrity (this has helped us become the dominant lifeform on Earth). This is in balance with man's need to elevate him/herself above the rest by whatever means necessary. Therefore I submit that we are not "groping" towards utter integration; we are indeed remaining at a status quo which societal values aim to increase and human nature aim to decrease. Societal values attempt to mold everyone into someone who possesses integrity yet there will always be people who will fight the molding of personality by an outside source (society).

Courtney Styborski said...

I completely understand the ways that ROUX (as in the thickening agent) or RUE (as in a road, to possibly better things), was the basis for the change the town went through. The effect of our beloved Johnny Depp is shown as the town coming together and co-existing peacefully,but if it were not for Vienne, Roux would have had no support. So in a way Vienne was the main reason that things changed in the town at all. The effect she had in the town brought people together like Caroline and her son, the old couple who admired each other from afar, the married couple who lost the spark and so forth, but only after Roux/Rue makes his appearance does she really decide to make a stand. so basically Roux acts as the fat and liquid mix and Vienne acts as the is the base that is strengthened by the roux. Even though the town goes through the large change towards integrity, immoral and dishonest acts still occur. Like the fact that Serge still lurks somewhere in the world, beating women, setting fires, and causing problems. And he is not alone. The integrity of the world did not change, but the slight movement towards integrity of that single town has to have some effect someway.

Brianne Ihasz said...

This may sound a lot less intelligent than Nikk or Than's answers to the question at hand but I will express my agreement anyways. I do indeed see a connection between the character Roux (Rue? 'Roo?) and the noun roux. Like the roux that is the base of a soup, Roux holds Vienne and Anuk, the ingredients, together. He gives them a sense of purpose and a reason to stay. I believe that Roux has integrity AND he provides integrity for the people around him. However, I do agree with Andrew in the sense that this may happen sporatically, but it may never be widespread. Integrity and integration is hard to obtain in a society that has hundreds of years of being corrupt, being divided, and masking problems under its belt. In agreement with Andrew, competitiveness is a natural tendency, and trying to shut down that feeling in every single person in the world would be impossible. Integrity may be a nice thing to grope towards, but I don't know that the world will ever reach that point. What goes up must come down. While the world may reach some extremely peaceful and prosperous points in history, it will always be accompanied by downfalls.

Ally C said...

After reading these comments, I think I better understand how Roux fits into the whole integrity and "mixing" thing. Since he gets some of the townspeople to get off their high horses and see him as a real person, not just a "river rat," he was able to change the way they think of gypsies in general. At Armande's birthday party, they were hesitant to accept him, but because of his character and personality, they soon came to view him as a person. Because of this, I think that he was a small cause of the integration of the town into being more accepting of people who are different. This would be for the better good of all, especially the mayor, because they had wanted everyone to fit perfectly into their town and they changed or ruined those who weren't like them. For example, changing Serge into a "gentleman," denying service at the bar to Roux and the young girl for being "animals" and for trying to stop people from going to the chocolate shop. However, I think Roux wouldn't have been able to be this integrating force without Vienne.
I believe he was the "roux" of the town because he was the base in which they built their tolerance from. He was the mixing ingredient for Vienne and Anuk as well because he bridged the gap in the mother-daughter relationship because there was finally a reason to stay and have a home.

Matt Sheridan said...

While watching the movie Chocolat I didn't know what a Roux was I just thought it was just some French name. But after reading Nikk's statement at the top I realized Johnny Depp's character name had an underlining meaning. A roux is a paste made from flour and fat that helps bring together the other ingredients that you want to add. This is similar to how Roux brings the townspeople closer together with Vienne and Anuk. Roux begins the integration by throwing Armande's party on his ship.

Eliz said...

Even though it is impossible for everyone in our society to be integrated since discrimination is a human trait, we are still taking baby steps towards a more unified society. The same way that roux is a combination of ingredients, a melting pot if you will, so is our nation, our society. The more educated and aware we as people are becoming about other cultures, religions, etc. the more tolerant and accepting we are becoming. We, our society, is essentially the roux and, boy, is it one big bowl of soup.

Jake Maslak said...

Roux as it is said is a base like a soup. With that being said I have the understanding that different cultures can come together with a base that they all have in common. Sort of like cultural diffusion from global. In our nation there are many and when I say that I mean it, we all live under one constitution but most of us have different beliefs than others. I had no idea what any of these characters names were before Corcoran told us what they meant. I did not think they mattered and it is a very clever way to put an underlying meaning in the movie. With that being said roux is a huge part of this production as well as the society we live in today.

Kennedy Kujawa said...

I can see why Roux is a roux, how he is the force that brought Vienne and the townspeople together and closer to becoming fully integrated. I can also see how humanity as a whole is gaining more integrity. Less than two centuries ago, there were still slaves in America, and before that many countries were under the control of the British Empire. In the times of ancient Greece, royalty were the only ones who had any say. Obviously, we’re a bit closer to integrity now than we were then. But I don’t think we’re going to get much closer to being integrated. There are only so many freedoms people can obtain before becoming corrupted with power, and therefore losing their integrity. There will also always be immoral people who keep society from becoming fully integrated. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I don’t see how we’ll ever reach integration.

Ally G said...

Clearly since I'm one of the last, if not the last person to post an original comment, I sort of don't have anything new or clever to add that hasn't already been discussed. I basically think that Roux, when spelled like that, emphasizes the idea of integration. He serves as the base for which Vienne can build her existence in the town upon. He gives her confidence and allows her to be herself. Both Rue and Vienne are incredibly different from the people in the town but are able to get most members on their side. Because Roux acted as a “bond” between Vienne and the town, people were able to accept change more easily. The town was ultimately integrated thanks to Rue's presence and actions.

kale_mendez_de_mello.org said...

I'm going to go out on a limb and "call Than out". By that I mean nicely point out why I disagree with Isocracy. If, as a people, integrity is what we are striving for, a solidified government would not be needed. Assuming that once integrity (on a large scale) is reached, no overarching power is needed. People would be honorable and tolerable enough to govern themselves, prosper as small communities and thrive. In both these systems, without government and with, people are treated as equals. But in my mind, still having a government would eventually cause corruption somewhere down the line. time for round table bye byebye

Anonymous said...

Okay I'm pretty late on this, sorry about that. I'd have to say that his name is spelled, 'Roux' because he is Vienne and Anuk's base. Roux kind of stands for integration in this situation. He is what helps them decide to stay in the town. He has a strong personality which makes Vienne feel secure enough to stay in the town I think she knew he was going to come back by the end.
-Aleah