Thread: Untying Rope

Ok, so I was doing a quick critique for a friend and something just jumped off the page at me: a slaver released a slave by cutting the rope with which his hands were bound.

And then I thought, "Waitaminute..."

This guy is a slaver, right? Hypothetically, he has a use for rope--and even exactly *this length of rope*--on a pretty regular basis. I mean, after all, he used it on this guy. Where'd he get the rope? Apparently he didn't get it from anyone he has ever untied, because he didn't untie it: he cut it, thereby transforming it into two lengths of rope that are in fact useless for this very purpose.

...Is this an example of thinking like the writer rather than the character? It's convenient. It sets up a joke about the knife. But is it something the character would do? Is it really that hard, absent any struggling on the part of the captive, for a person to untie a knot in a short length of rope?

(Maybe I should take this to a kink forum instead?)

It's probably over-thinking things. Cutting the rope most likely occurs because of time - it takes time to untie a rope properly knotted (for this use) - so it could be practical as well as dramatic.

If it's a thriller, and I assume it is, the rope has to be cut. I mean, there's prolly a British man-o'-war firing cannons at this guy's ship, and you think he's gonna be getting down on his knees to start picking at a knot with his finger-nails? Sheeesh.

(To play devils here)

How expensive was rope back in slave times? It might have been worth more than the slave.
You know the Romans (it was actually Egyptian, but in the time of Roman domination), had built steam powered devices and only had to join two dots to make a actual steam engine. They had the technology sorted, so why didn't they? We don't know for certain, but one sane theory was simply that slaves were cheaper.
The second thing is situational. If we're talking stealth, maybe another need for the rope, maybe just no knife on hand. Maybe the guy just was a fusspot on destroying things.

Of course if it still jumps up as odd...

Not knowing anything else about the story or the scene, I would ask why was the slave tied with rope and not chained? Chains were more expensive than rope but could be rapidly unlocked and reused. Chains were probably more secure. A slave could not gnawl through a chain they way he or she could with a rope. I saw your comment about how the knife sets up a joke, but still, I'd be asking why a rope and not a chain? When you talk about slaves and confinement, the image that comes to mind is a chain, not a rope. If you insist on using a rope and not a chain, it's not easy to cut a rope, especially a rope strong enough to confine a human being. One would have to saw back and forth with the knife a dozen or more times. C.M.

Maybe the author is making another point here. The slaver didn't tie up an animal with no thumbs and little logical ability, he tied up another human who, presumably, had not much else to do while he was tied up other than think about how to untie himself. (Humans are annoying that way) Therefore, if the slaver found it easier to cut the rope rather than to try and untie the knots that could illustrate how tight the knots were tied, what kind of knot was used (some are easy to undo some are not meant to be undone), and/or if the rope had gotten wet and would have become even more of a pain in the neck to undo.

So I'd say that the author used this to illustrate that the knots would have been very difficult for the slave to undo and I also agree that it would be for dramatic effect.

If it's a thriller, and I assume it is, the rope has to be cut. I mean, there's prolly a British man-o'-war firing cannons at this guy's ship, and you think he's gonna be getting down on his knees to start picking at a knot with his finger-nails? Sheeesh.

And this! Which also made me laugh.

I think you are over thinking it. There are several things to keep in mind when you are thinking about rope tying/untying. How quickly do you want to get the person out/how hard should it be for the person to get out/and your immediate need for more rope. I the last of which is the least considered option. All that is said for when you are thinking of it in real life. As Ox says cutting works better for thrillers. It adds more action and more realistic seeming. I would have them cut in my own story.

Overthinking is my specialty.

Of course I think a leather thong, cheaper to manufacture, would be the preferred choice for tying up a slave, and I have suggested that; you would lose less by cutting it, economically. Kind of like those plastic cuffs cops use.

But many of you bring up the matter of context, which is separate from economics, and I think you make a good point, which leads me to this train of thought:

On the one hand, to save the rope, it's important to untie it, especially as there is no time pressure involved.

On the other hand, they are faking an escape, which implies hurry, which means it should be cut in order to maintain the illusion.

On the other hand, he has his hands tied behind his back before the escape, in which case it *must* be untied, as he could not have overpowered the guard without having first released himself from his bonds, in order to maintain the illusion. I think this one is trump.

...Like I said, overthinking is my specialty.

But no one has any idea how difficult it would be to untie a knot intended to resist being untied by the captive on which it is tied?

Cutting it has dramatic effect, and in fiction that can be more important than strictly logical thinking, but I would say you are right, most villages round here have a straight piece of road that goes nowhere and is called 'Rope Walk'. a lot of time and effort must have gone into making rope.

Rope is unpredictable, it can slip, stretch, or otherwise allow the slave to slip from bondage. Chains/shakles are more reliable, metal does not stretch and if sized right will not slip.

If using rope, the one problem with tying a person is the one tied tends to cinch the knots by struggling against them or even just normal actions. So very quickly knots would be very tough to untie. Special knots and binds reduce the cinching of the knot and also;

rope can tighten around the wrists and cause loss of circulation, loss of circulation long enough means the slave loses a hand or both, thus making the slave unprofitable.

So to loose the slave escapes=0 money
to tight, slave damaged=0 money
and the difference between the two is not a great amount.

Rope burns might also cause skin damage, which could get infected, infection could cause loss of hands or even death and again money=0.

Oh, yes, there is also conspiracy to untie the ropes, two slaves work on each others ropes and free themselves. So if tied, they need to be tied to something to keep them apart.
Chains keep this from happening. No one can unlock the chains without the key or a locksmith, and it would take a while to cut, and make alot of noise to chop(and might hurt the slave).

Olly: I remember reading somewhere that one of the last applications of capital punishment in Britain had to do with facilities for manufacturing rope. That seems to make it a pretty important commodity in a maritime culture! That's a really neat fact, that towns were actually laid out with such things in mind.

I am not sure exactly when we lost capital punishment in this country, but it certainly wasn't until after WWII so 1950's I guess, I think we had got past ships that relied on ropes and sails by then Was it that we used to hang them? They ended up at the end of a rope?
When I lived in Goudhurst I actually lived in Rope walk, and I know there is one in Sandhurst where I lived before and in Cranbrook which was the local small town, it must have been a common part of local industry.

SeverinR. I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but many slaves were not restrained most of the time. Reading about the Irish slave markets in the 500's the value of the slaves increased dramatically when they were shipped abroad, they were less likely to abscond if there was no hope of getting home, and female slaves were valued above young males for the same reason. Many slaves were things like domestic servants or even librarians, bureaucrats, or favoured mistresses who would actually have been worse off if they had run away, it rather depends on where and when you are talking about. We think of the agricultural labourers of America and the West Indies , and of galley slaves, but slavery was a fairly standard part of the social organisation for two or three thousand years. The Romans for example traded slaves in their millions each year, and Ibn Bahtuta talks about travelling in a wheeled yurt with two or three favourite slave girls and attending the funeral of a favourite slave girls' child.

Oh, it was on a list of funny laws that were still on the books long after they weren't enforced. Now I'm going to have to see if I can find it.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

I am not sure exactly when we lost capital punishment in this country, but it certainly wasn't until after WWII so 1950's I guess, I think we had got past ships that relied on ropes and sails by then Was it that we used to hang them? They ended up at the end of a rope?
When I lived in Goudhurst I actually lived in Rope walk, and I know there is one in Sandhurst where I lived before and in Cranbrook which was the local small town, it must have been a common part of local industry.

SeverinR. I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but many slaves were not restrained most of the time. Reading about the Irish slave markets in the 500's the value of the slaves increased dramatically when they were shipped abroad, they were less likely to abscond if there was no hope of getting home, and female slaves were valued above young males for the same reason. Many slaves were things like domestic servants or even librarians, bureaucrats, or favoured mistresses who would actually have been worse off if they had run away, it rather depends on where and when you are talking about. We think of the agricultural labourers of America and the West Indies , and of galley slaves, but slavery was a fairly standard part of the social organisation for two or three thousand years. The Romans for example traded slaves in their millions each year, and Ibn Bahtuta talks about travelling in a wheeled yurt with two or three favourite slave girls and attending the funeral of a favourite slave girls' child.

I was thinking of American Colony slaves. Most of my post involves property of rope and complications of being restrained by rope. The less a human body is restrained physically the healthier they are.

BTW most of my knowledge of restraints comes from job related. (AF Security police and a nurse)

I will have to do research on slaves. Was there laws protecting slaves or was it just popular to treat slaves well? I tend to think of slaves as being treated like livestock, rather then bought servants. While publicly they were treated well, I'm betting privately they were treated less then human. Maybe the class of slave owners were better? Wealthy people rather then farmers.

I wonder how many of the mistresses were completely voluntary, or making the best of it. (To be fair I believe alot of marriages involved this too, someone to provide for them or their families.)

My fantasy world embraces slavery, it has both the well cared for slaves and the sleazy slavers.