Wosbald wrote:
Even if you read Providence as "Luck" (which, as WF felicitously points out, is easily doable), you've added a second variable to the mix which is in positional tension with Freewill. This, itself, would seem to problematize your assertion that "[a]ll of the wonders that are wrought in the Chronicles are wrought by the characters themselves".
We've been talking about numerous definitions of providence/provident since the beginning. I believe it was Vraith who listed them (there's still quite a few relevant posts in the other thread). And I've noted several different meanings in the list of quotes you provided at the outset of this thread. Yes, it can be read as "luck." It can sometimes be read as "prudent planning." It can sometimes be read as "generous," (for characters) or "bounteous" (for the Land).
If you can accept that Providence (the Divine sort) can take the form of characters suddenly appearing to help each other, why can't luck also take this form? Just because characters have wrought their own wonders doesn't mean this isn't a lucky thing to have happen (especially for others whom they help), or that luck isn't involved in their own actions while they create these wonders. If there is no contradiction in the Divine and the mundane interacting, there certainly is no contradiction in luck and the mundane interacting, because luck *is* mundane.
That's the whole point. We get used to thinking of mundane as synonymous with "routine," "typical," or even "boring." We lose the wonder for the mundane by forgetting that things which are rare, precious, lucky, improbable come from the same exact mundane world that also contains death, drudgery, and despite. Reawakening our recognition of the "divine" (little "d-," metaphorical) in the mundane is the point. It's a reason to sustain hope in the face of death and despite. Sometimes the world itself is wonderful, and perfectly mundane wonders appear to surprise us.
I should have said, "All the
important wonders are wrought by the characters." I was thinking of Linden raising Covenant from the dead, creating a new Forestal, and L/C/J creating a new Land. Things like that. But some wonders just happen, like finding food where you didn't expect.
There's no contradiction here.
Wosbald wrote:To me, such an imperative would seem to demonstrate an unwelcome residue of monism.
Not sure what you mean.
Wosbald wrote:Also, I would add that the fact that some ham-fisted partisans have attempted to convert the Chrons into a thinly veiled religio-ideological manifesto (to which SRD rightly and repeatedly applied the brakes) would not justify correspondingly ham-fisted attempts to convert them into a seculario-ideological manifesto.
I'm not saying that he's writing a manifesto. But Donaldson has told us numerous times that he's writing from a secular, humanist
perspective. And he says that trying to see it otherwise misses "the point" of his story. On the other hand, he also claims not to be writing *about* anything other than characters and their story (i.e. no themes whatsoever, if you can believe him).
Donaldson wrote:So you could--if you were so inclined--say that my stance as a story-teller is one of "existential humanism."
That's probably the most explicit version of what I'm talking about. It's quotes like that which give support to my interpretation. However, he goes on to say that this isn't what he's writing
about.
Donaldson wrote:As for me, I don't think about religious themes--or *any* themes--when I write. I concentrate on two things: 1) telling the story to the best of my abilities; and 2) giving as much of myself to my characters as I can. In retrospect, of course, I become aware of all manner of themes. But I don't consciously strive for those themes while I'm writing.
(06/05/2011)
Donaldson wrote:I must insist: I DO NOT HAVE A MESSAGE. Certainly not in the sense that "allegory" implies. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, teach you anything, demonstrate anything, or advocate for anything.
My *message,* if I have one, is simply that good stories are worth reading. Why? Because, in my experience, they expand us. How? By engaging us in extremely specific individuals experiencing extremely specific dilemmas which we would not have encountered otherwise, but which (precisely because they are not us) can increase the range of what we're able to understand and (perhaps) empathize with. Polemics, by definition, is about generalization. Story-telling, by definition, is entirely consumed in specifics.
...My stories are not *about* anything except my characters and their emotions; their dilemmas and their responses to those dilemmas.
However, I think he recognizes on some level that even this assertion about his work--as with any author--can be questioned:
Donaldson wrote:Under the circumstances, it's remarkable that audiences do often achieve a degree of consensus. Both Lewis and Tolkien claimed that their works (Narnia and LOTR) were not allegorical. At a guess, I would say that 90% of readers dismiss Lewis' assertion and accept Tolkien's.
Of course, we could discuss whether or not the text of "The Chronicles" qualifies as allegory. But first we would have to define allegory. By any definition that I'm familiar with, I dislike allegory in general, and I strive against it in my own work.
