Essays Are Magic VI: Explaining "The Gift of Maud Pie"

What really transpired in the latest episode of our beloved show, “The Gift of Maud Pie”? What was it really about? Really?

To put the answer shortly, a careful reading of the episode, especially of the logic of the gift it puts forward, offers some intriguing perspectives into pony psychology, which, as must be obvious, is nothing short of anthropomorphic – thus of utmost relevance to ourselves.

First, a brief recap (beware of spoilers, everypony). Initially we have what seems like your average episode of the show. We get to witness Maud Pie in action again, along with the dynamics of her interaction with Pinkie – always a pleasure to follow. We even get to see that little smile at the end, the heart-melting moment many other analysts and reviewers have focused on.

Second, a motive. What I wish to focus on here goes beyond the personalities of the characters, to the very structure of the logic they were part of. The name of that logic was already mentioned: it is that of the gift. In sum, and thirdly, why I found this episode so intriguing was that it touches, in a rather profound sense I should dare say, some issues central to what in the late 20th century French philosophy could be called the question of the gift.

What is a gift? Clearly something we occasionally give to each other as a token of goodwill, gratitude, and friendship. As much was confirmed by the episode. Traditionally, the philosophical interest in the question of gift since the days of Aristotle has been of what constitutes the gift proper; when is a gift a gift and not simply a way to promote our own interests in some fashion? Can there even be such a thing as a purely altruistic gift?

One way to approach the issue is from the point of view of (dis)interested action. When can we call an action truly disinterested in the sense that it does not aim at promoting the good of the actor, whatever that is? Clearly people can promote the good of others, even when they are not human, but that’s beside the point, for it could be argued that even altruistic goods are “interested” in the sense that it is in the interest of the agent to pursue them. A truly disinterested action could be defined, roughly, as something the agent intentionally does but in which they have no interest, which immediately smells like a contradiction in terms.

There is also another angle to look at things: the social dimension of gift-giving. Giving a gift is not an activity individuals do spontaneously or arbitrarily, based on their own whims. There are loads and loads of customs to the practice, to the point where we sometimes do it when we don’t really want to, but because it is expected of us.

To return back to the episode, which kind of gift do we encounter? One is tempted to say that both modes are present. On the one hoof the Pie sisters have an interest in making each other happy by providing each other a gift; on the other they clearly have a custom regulating the exchange. Of course, these motives need not stand in contradiction, but as in real life, can both act as reasons for giving the gift.

But now comes the tricky part. We recall how the plot of the episode is built around Pinkie trying to find the perfect gift for Maud, who has served her the same during the past years. We recall her desperation when she is unable to fulfill her interest and customary function both. When she finally finds a way to satisfy these needs, the cost of doing so ends up being higher than she expected. Nonetheless she pays it, for the love she feels towards her sister presumably.

My question is, why did Pinkie remain sad after all this? She had fulfilled her need, which we know was her primary one; she told Rarity as much. Knowing the value the cannon had for her, we’d expect her to be disappointed, yes, but such utter devastation raises questions. Would Pinkie have preferred to keep her cannon after all, and only submitted to the exchange because duty and custom demanded that of her?

I don’t think so. Rather, my explanation would be the following. Pinkie did not become saddened, first and foremost, because she had to give up something very dear to her. Instead, what broke her was, not that she had given more than she wanted to, but the fresh consciousness of the fact that she had to do it. She was in a sense compelled to give up her cannon. And the awareness of this is what brought her down more than the act of giving itself did.

Again, I’m not saying that Pinkie really loved her cannon more than her sister; neither am I saying that their established convention somehow mechanically or deterministically fated her to act as she did. What I’m getting at is that Pinkie, in giving up something she rather would have kept, realized that her desire to give Maud the best gift ever was not solely born of goodwill, but was partly conditioned by the tradition they shared; what she became aware of was this tradition as such, the mechanical, blind force of conventionality. But this mechanism did not determine her choice externally, but internally, in constituting that desire in the first place.

What Pinkie lost was far more important than her cannon. She lost the illusion that her desire for Maud’s happiness was purely based on her free will and care for her. In relinquishing her cannon, she came to name a price for their relationship. And it was precisely the knowledge that such a price existed that got her down – not the high cost of the tag itself.

Another way to frame the idea is to recognize that the economy of exchange that reigned between the sisters, the currency of which was altruism, became infected by an interested economy; that of the pony who purchased Pinkie’s cannon. What he wanted was profit, a surplus, and it was this surplus that was injected into the bloodstream of the sisters’ relationship in the form of a self-conscious cost. Pinkie now knew how much Maud Pie’s happiness was worth to her. And the knowledge crushed her. Why? Because every love feeds itself with make-belief of its own infinity.

Following this line of thought, a few other observations can be made about the episode. First of all, why was Maud so infuriated (in her own peculiar way) when she got to know what Pinkie had done? Why could she not appreciate the sacrifice her sister had made, but immediately sought to undo it? Why she could not, for a moment, entertain the thought of respecting her decision?

Because Maud knew, perhaps better than Pinkie, that what she had exchanged away was not simply an object too valuable to give up, but the game of giving gifts itself. By reaching awareness of the limits of her generosity, Pinkie had destroyed the essence of the custom that bound the sisters, namely the fact that they should not be allowed to know how much exactly they loved each other, but only that they always loved more, that every gift was better than the next. When the sense of debt that shadows every gift was brought into the light, the practice itself was brought into question.

Second, why did not Maud simply buy the cannon back from the other pony? Why she had to insist on reversing the transaction symmetrically? Wouldn’t it have been easier to give the pony some bits on top of the rock pouch to satisfy his need for profit, and surely she would have been ready for the extra loss – this was about Pinkie after all. But Maud knew better. She knew that if she simply repeated what Pinkie had done and give the pony something more than she was willing to depart with, that would get them nowhere; the awareness of the cost of their relationship would surface anew.

To break free from the infect of interest, the defiled pony had to be drawn to the economy of the gift, which meant giving him an extraeconomic, irrational reason to release the cannon. Thus, with the help of Rarity, Maud intimidated the pony to accept her logic. Maud could not allow herself to know how much the cannon, i.e. Pinkie’s happiness, was worth to her; that’s why the reverse transaction needed to be as identical as possible, which meant that it had to be driven by passions, like those of the relationship of the sisters.

Maud was not forced to act because the cannon simply was too valuable. In some circumstances Pinkie might have given it up voluntarily to her for example, and she’d likely accept it. Not the fact that the cannon was given up, but that it was given to the wrong pony, i.e. outside the economy of passions, that mattered. By abandoning a piece potentially employable in the game, Pinkie had abandoned the game itself.

One last point: Rarity. She too became entwined in the game of gifts eventually, for good and bad both. But her place in that game, gratuitously hoofed to her as a gift itself, was actually already countergift for the help she had given for Pinkie and Maud. But to be a proper gift, it had to hide its origin, that it was returning a favour, for that would have ruined it as a gift.

Comments

[ponygrad]

If this had been more obvious, the episode would be a solid 9/10, instead of a 6/10. Pinkie already knows "you gotta share, you gotta care", but it would have been great to see her acknowledge the cost of doing so.