Chapter Text
Editor's Note:
Below is a heavily abridged version of Dr. Refuse Companion's paper on Irish war hero Skulduggery Pleasant. Despite the attention it received at the time of publication, Companion's work is often considered too dense for many students to read all 760 pages of the original work. For my part, when I was an undergraduate studying magical history, Companion's name was used colloquially as a synonym for terrible writing. My friends might describe a reading as "too Companiony", in rather annoyed tones.
Despite my negative first impressions, I've come to acknowledge the importance of Refuse's work - not as an account of historical fact, but rather as a historical document in its own right, reflective of the author and the turbulent time it was written in. Though most people have not read his original work, Companion's writings were influential to the development of Irish magical history theory of the Mevolent and Truce Eras. "A Pleasant Myth" (henceforth APM) is his most controversial work. While some historians accept the idea that Skulduggery Pleasant's image was used as propaganda in the latter part of the First Faceless War, others fervently disagree. It is vital for any dedicated student to understand the primary text which fueled this debate.
My aim as editor is to preserve the fundamental arguments of APM while making it accessible to a larger audience. I have removed parts of the work that I found too meandering or archaic to be of use to current students. Ellipses (...) indicate where I have done this. I have avoided the temptation to include my own perspective on Skulduggery Pleasant, though I will acknowledge that I do not share Refuse's views.
APM was published with immediate success in December 2163, despite criticism from contemporary historians and important public figures. It was never peer reviewed, but at the time of publication it was generally considered a text of merit. One of many figures that disputed APM's contents, Omen Darkly wrote: "This is bullshit! Skulduggery Pleasant was real; I knew him for years." (Darkly, 2163).
After Companion's death it was discovered that he was the illegitimate grandson of Nefarian Serpine (Bane, 2190). Considering the bad blood between Pleasant and Serpine, familial bias may have motivated Companion to publish this text.
A Pleasant Myth: On the Impossibilities of the Skeleton Detective, or, Conclusive Proof of the Fabrication of Skulduggery Pleasant
[Excerpt from Chapter One: Collecting Evidence]
When one thinks about the crucial figures of the First Faceless War and the subsequent Truce, many names come to mind. Much scholarship has been done on those involved on both sides of the conflict in Ireland, with extensive research on Supreme Mage China Sorrows, the Dead Men, Valkyrie Cain and Esryn Vanguard, amongst others. Of course, the name of Skulduggery Pleasant is prominent, and many marvelous achievements are accredited to this man. These include the defeat of Mevolent and Lord Vile, the success of the Allies against the Faceless Army, the murder of Nefarian Serpine, the suppression of the Ravel Revolution during the Truce (Sorrows, 1898 and 2004). And, less discussed yet more amazing, the resurrection of Pleasant as a skeleton.
Despite these numerous claims, there is little recorded evidence of the life and actions of Skulduggery Pleasant. This can be partially attributed to the destruction of numerous archives following the death of Detective Valkyrie Cain. However, even with this tragic inconvenience, there is less information available on Pleasant than his contemporaries. There are at least three times more documents on Pleasant's fellow Dead Man Ghastly Bespoke, a man renown for avoidance of public spotlight, at least until his election and Elder of Ireland prior to the Ravel Revolution. When I was conducting my research I could find volumes on Pleasant's contemporaries, but little on the renown Skeleton Detective himself. Why would such an important man be referenced so little? This bothered me for a long time. Then, an explanation occurred to me. What other reason could there be for such superficial evidence of a living man, but that he was not living at all?
At this point, clarification is necessary. I am not alleging that Skulduggery Pleasant never existed, nor am I challenging his importance in the first Faceless War while he was alive . We have evidence abundant for him then; his marriage to Augustus Forestall is well documented, as are his feats in battle and his contributions to diplomacy. Ghastly Bespoke spoke of him fondly during that time, as did Erskine Ravel and Hopeless. Even China Sorrows writes of him in her letters. It is after Pleasant's murder at the hand of Serpine that his actions come into question.
The official story goes something like this: tricked by General Serpine, Pleasant's wife and child are murdered in front of him. Pleasant is imprisoned, tortured, and (despite his friends' attempts to free him) is burnt at the stake. Thrown into a river in a sack, Pleasant comes to consciousness as a skeleton when the war turns against his side. He puts himself back together, returns to the battlefield, and aids the eventual success of the Allies (Deuce, 1730).
When viewing this critically, questions immediately occur that have no answers. How did Pleasant come back to life? No similar occurrence is recorded in all written history, and no explanation for this instance is provided. Are we expected to blindly believe that this man came back to life, in such a painful and inexplicable way? Impossible things do happen when magic is involved, but this is an extremely unlikely event. Furthermore, Pleasant's miraculous resurrection is only documented in Allied pamphlets - papers intended to boost the morale of a tired army, to spread propaganda and help the Allies win the war ("Allied Reports" no. 33). The last point is crucial; the miracle of Skulduggery Pleasant was a vital weapon in the Allies' hands. His name boosted morale, his story gave people purpose, and his image was used accordingly (Tome, 1945). Pleasant was useful to the Allies, but did he truly need to exist? Did it matter if he actually rose from the dead, if he could be used as such effective propaganda? ... The proposition is this: Skulduggery Pleasant was a popular soldier that died in tragic and heroic circumstances. The Allied army, needing morale for a desperate cause, fabricated his resurrection to create a living martyr that could lead them all to victory ... (This continues until page 3).
[Excerpt from Chapter Three: Considering The Implications]
A question that emerges, under this line of inquiry, is why would Pleasant's friends allow his image to be used in this way? Surely such callous use of a war hero's name, the twisting of his life to suit propagandist purposes, would provoke an outcry? Faking his return from death would surely harm the living, as well as Pleasant's memory. But, on closer consideration, one remembers that the majority of Pleasant's friends were made after his return as a skeleton. Those closest to him had been murdered before him, and his friends were few. Erskine Ravel, Ghastly Bespoke and Hopeless come to mind. One might suggest that these three would oppose their army's treatment of Pleasant's image. However, Erskine Ravel has proven capable of doing whatever he felt necessary for the betterment of society; seen in his involvement in the Ravel Revolution, where he betrayed his closest friends. There is no reason to expect him to have moral objections to something so helpful to the war effort. As for Hopeless? They were a fear-mage who was involved in interrogations, a person who could terrify those around them through magic alone; why would such a being feel moral qualms at something that did not harm any living creature?
Bespoke remains the hardest to pin down; for he was Pleasant's closely friend and by all accounts an honourable man. He was devastated by Pleasant's death. The two men were reportedly like brothers. However, he was also a soldier, required to follow orders. Had his closest friends supported this propagandist course of action, he would have too ... Furthermore, Pleasant's loved ones were dead, and so Pleasant is a perfect person to appropriate for this purpose. ... From this perspective, how did crucial events of our history truly play out? Let us first consider the deaths of Mevolent and Lord Vile... (continues until page 13).