The beggar's note

[amanibhavam]

Yes, this is about that scarp of paper the old man in the ochre robe sends to Covenant in LFB. The old man, the beggar, who is no less, than the Creator himself, so one must take him seriously.
Well, in that note he says:

If he is defeated, he will die, and his world - the real world - will be destroyed, because it lacks the inner strength to survive.

So waddayathink? Do we have to take this note word for word? In other words, had Covenant failed, would the real world have been truly destroyed? Or is it just that he would've died in the real world, which he did in the end anyway?

How deep goes the connection between our world and the Land?

[Bannor]

I had completely forgotten about that note. I had to go back and find it, and I found the note to quite lengthy. This is my thinking on the question you posed: I think the man in the robe, when he said, "If he is defeated, he will die, and his world-the real world- will be destroyed because it lacks the will to survive," was speaking of Covenant's personal world (each of us has our own world) and not the Earth. I am often wrong, but I couldn't see the entire Earth being destroyed because of Covenant. Excellent question! I am interested to see others' views.

[Guest]

I've wondered about that note myself, it seems to cement the bond between "The Land" & the "Real World".

Addressing the question of whether or not the Real World would of been destroyed I'm reminded of the explaination Covenant gave to Linden about The Land when they first arrived; the Outside or Inside Explaination.

Looking at the Inside Explaination The Land is real & I think the note can be taken quite literally which would mean that both worlds would die together.

But on the other hand, looking at the Outside Explaination The Land is a dream, a sort of personification of Covenants inner strife in which case I would interprete "his world" to be Covenant himself, either physically or mentally/emotionally as Bannor had mentioned.

To me it comes down to the central question of whether or not The Land is real........

-Coercri

[kevinswatch]

I totally don't remember that note at all. Why can I not remember it?-jay

[Skyweir]

a truly fascinating exploration ..

What is the 'real world'? which world is real to the Creator? Both as Coercri mentioned? Are the 2 worlds absolutely interconnected?

That both worlds would cease to exist if the Land falls to LF and the AoT is broken?

If TC had failed .. it goes without saying that The Creator's 'world' would have been destroyed .. so maybe The Creator as the author of the note/scrap of paper .. deemed his own world to be the real world ..

.. however that is too easy .. and it seems more likely that he is referring cryptically to TC as Bannor asserted ..

mmm .. dung!! I have to go .. I will really like to explore this interesting question further ..

but I must bid you adieu .. brb

[amanibhavam]

OFF:

you know that note sums up the essence of TCTC so well, that I can entirely imagine SRD writing it first as his very first idea about the Chronicles (maybe on a napkin in a restaurant) - and then, as he began to write the first novel, he thinks: look, why not use this little note in the book?

ON

[aliantha]

I can see him doing that, too, amy!

I read an interview of SRD somewhere online where he says that the world will be destroyed in the 3d Chrons. Something to that effect, anyhow. Maybe destroyed and made new, like in "The Neverending Story"? We can hope...

[Bannor]

If SRD has the world end in the 3rd Chronicles, it can only be to keep from having to write a 4th one. Hard to believe that either world will end, but it's hard to predict SRD.

[Skyweir]

uggh its more than I could bare!!

If the Land remained permanently destroyed with no hope of future .. oh ... no its much too horrible to contemplate!!

The only solace I found in the end of WGW was the fact that TC would go on as a scepter (sp?) .. continue to exist .. not 'end' .. no finality!!

GAME OVER! .... type of scenario ..

I hope that does not happen .. and if it does it will only be temporary till TC or someone can restore hope .. and the Land ..

I think SRD has drawn such a real connection between the 2 worlds that it would be inconceivable to end one without the other .. And if one ends which one do you choose?? Which one is the 'real' world .. really??

Is it we who are living in a Matrix-esque construct .. surely both worlds are real .. why would the Creator pose doubt as to the reality of one of the worlds??

Just because something inhabits a different dimension to you doesnt automatically imply its not real ..

oh I must go.. this is way too disturbing ..

[amanibhavam]

no, I think it is a very plausible plotline: the Arch of Time destroyed, Lord Foul unleashed into the Void, battle: LF vs. the Creator plus TC?, victory, and the Creator remakes the Arch, with a brand new Land under it...

[aliantha]

That would be pretty cool!

Bannor, one of the funniest things I ever read in the Chronicles was the dedication in TWL, and I'm quoting from memory:

To Lester Del Ray: Lester made me do it.

[Bannor]

Thanks, Aliantha! And thanks to Lester for making him do it!

[danlo]

Welcome onions! U might want 2 peruse this thread re: ur question...

[Fist and Faith]

I don't think the note meant that the real world will be destroyed because of any kind of connection. I think it means that whoever "abstracted" and "deposited" the guy would destroy his world if he loses the battle, having judged his world unworthy.

On another level, I think perhaps it means that Covenant's ultimate failure in the Land, if it had gone that way, would have shown that the Real World would have been destroyed - eventually - by its own actions. It would not have been able to continue, certainly not flourish, indefinitely, because it lacks what is needed for joy and life to exist. The qualities needed would <I>have</I> to be present in all members to at least some degree. If we are capable of letting even one person be without them, then we will eventually, for one reason or another, let things slip to the point that the world is destroyed. The test was to see if Covenant had these qualities. If he did, then it would not have been possible for him to have failed. That's the way the test worked. No matter how bad things got, he could not have lost sight of these things. In the end, they would reassert themselves. So if he failed, it was because the rest of us are not bothering with these essential things. And the Real World is doomed by its own lackings/inadequacies.

Well, that's my theory anyway

[onions]

Well thank you Danlo, for resurrecting the thread.

Still, it didn't answer my question.
Do you think Covenant was brave or cowardly for refusing to believe?

Is there a special significance for the note to be asking this question? I mean, the beggar could have used the same scenario to ask many different questions.

onions

[[Syl]]

To refuse to believe, in Covenant's case, is neither brave, nor cowardly, or possibly both at the same time. You could easily call it pragmatic, but if it's a choice between the two, then you have neither. That is the paradox that is TC, and that is why he was chosen. A brave man (Hile, the Lords, et al) would fight Foul and lose. A coward (not that we ever encountered any) would flee and Foul would win by default.

TC's makeup is not like that of anyone in the land (except Mhoram, and he only learned the lesson from Covenant... hmmm, Berek and maybe Loric knew as well, I suppose) in that he has learned to keep going in the face of despair. This makes him the white gold... and really frikkin' stubborn.

So, my answer to the question? "Yes."

[danlo]

onions, with leprosy and all the weirdness and madness TC had 2 deal with on Earth, I don't think he really had a choice! Remember that the Dr.s at the Leprosarium tell him that his imagination can kill him. All that knowledge is ingrained in2 him as much as his VSE. He has 2 believe he's dreaming or in a coma when he enters The Land. It's just 2 different 4 any semi-sane person not 2 have imagined...

[amanibhavam]

cowardice can also be a driving factor: see Angus Thermopyle

[onions]

Hmm, Sylvanus,
I agree with you about the "yes".
TC is neither brave nor cowardly, but both.
On the one hand he is too cowardly to assume responsibility for the Land and thus provokes one catastrophe after the other. On the other I find him brave because he remains true to himself all the time. He refuses to be pressurized into doing something by others.

Still, it makes me wonder why SRD posed this question.
There are all sorts of questions that cropped up in me about TCs character, but "brave or cowardly" was not one of them.

The paradox in Covenant IMO is not brave/cowardly but depending on the context hatred/love or deathwish/life preservation. That is what makes Covenant different from the rest.

onions

[Guest]

Well, let's consider what happened in the 2nd trilogy, esp. the possession of people that made a sect, whose purpose was to get TC back in the Land.

This wasn't in TC's imagination. It affected other people than just TC, or Linden.

So, imagine then LF unleashed in the 'real' world, ie TC's world, ie 'our' world (well, y'know whaddimean...).

If TC lost in the Land's world, that meant LF escaping that world. Escaping where? Well, if the Creator can be in TC's world, physically, and have powers (but which? we don't know the extent of his powers in the 'real' world), then LF might well also come there, and why not do battle to his 'enemy' there...

('Battlefield Earth'... ugh... sorry for that reference!)

So, that's what the note was refering to, I think: we wouldn't be ready for Lord Foul. We may not have an 'internal consistency' like Earthpower.

just my 2¢.

happy winter festivities