Foul/Jeremiah and other musings

[ur-James]

Greetings! Finally finished Runes last week, so I'm cruising around here, reading up on all the theories. Time for a couple of mine. Someone in a completely different thread brought up the thing where Foul says "Tell her I have her son." Now, right away I thought he was talking about Linden, but then I thought he might have been talking about Joan.

Then I wondered if he was telling the truth at all. For some inexplicable reason, as soon as I read that line "Tell her I have her son" it has always rang false to me. It is clear he is talking to someone else, telling someone to relay a message to either Joan or Linden. I believe it's Linden, because it's obvious that Joan and Roger both know what's going on, so why would Foul tell someone to tell Joan that he has Roger? Wouldn't Joan know that? And she's already crazy, so it's not like it would make a difference anyway.

So it's obvious that he is telling someone to tell Linden that he has her son. And in the back of my head, that line has rang false. I don't know why, but I don't think Foul had her son, it was all a ruse. I wouldn't put it past Foul to let Linden believe that her son is being tortured. Hell, she believed it even before Foul said anything, didn't she? So why wouldn't he just perpetuate that belief, letting Linden lead herself to despair without having to do anything. Hasn't he said he doesn't take direct action? That he "suggests here and there" (paraphrasing)? And now that Jeremiah is back to Linden and most obviously has his voice and consciousness back (he is described as yelling joyously on the back of the horse at the end, is he not?). That in itself doesn't surprise me, he's in the Land now.

So I think that Foul never had her son to begin with, it was all a ruse to lead Linden to believe that her son was being tortured, causing her to despair without having to do a damn thing.

Then again, this theory isn't exactly well founded. Why would Foul lie like that and risk the possibility that she somehow get him back and see through his lie? I don't know, but I have a feeling Foul never had Jeremiah. Roger, maybe, which is to indirectly imply Foul, but not Foul directly.

Then again, we have to look at the fact that he is found alongside Covenant. This is all kinds of weird now. Did Covenant rescue him? Did Foul somehow control Covenant now and is sending him back with Jeremiah just to mess with Linden?

And Covenant's warning about "Beware, I'm dead" or something like that? I have a feeling that the Covenant that shows up at the end of Runes isn't Covenant, but something that simply resembles him. And the real Covenant knows this and is trying to tell Linden "Remember, I'm dead, supporting the Arch and all of that. So if you happen to see someone that looks like me, just remember that I'm dead." Something like that.

Anyway, those are kinda my theories, let me know what you all think.

James

[MrKABC]

Hmmmm... That whole translation scene into the Land was *very* cryptic... I'll have to re-read it again and see if any of it makes more sense to me now.

[native]

I agree that the line is cryptic, and might play to the Despiser's unwillingness to tell a direct lie. But Foul does say later that "Apart from the claiming of your vacant son, I have merely blah blah." Claiming and having are subtly different things of course, and could merely refer to the way Foul brought Jeremiah to the Land. One might note in that context that the Jeremiah of the Land is not "vacant." However, later on he says quite boldly and specifically "I have your son" which leaves less room for misinterpretation.

If Foul did "claim" Jeremiah, this could mean a number of things. It might mean he claimed Jeremiah 3,000 years ago when he first came to the Land. It might mean that Jeremiah is still a follower of Foul, or simply a creature of Despite. He started off as a Foul worshipper after all, and we have no evidence that he is a good person, just because Linden thinks of him as a son. Covenant's son is hardly a charmer after all.

My personal view is that as Jeremiah came to the Land in spirit 3,000 years ago, he must have been present during the Second Chronicles somehow, albiet in an unrecognisable form, given his likely disembodiment. The possibility I most like is that the Croyel were his attempts to re-embody himself. I notice the things most emphasised about Jeremiah were his autistic capacity to bring order to things, and at the end of Runes his willingness to encourage the others. The distinguishing feature of the Croyel was also to allow the host to bring order and leadership - as with the Arghuleh and with Kasreyn. And of course the other distinguishing feature of the Croyel is their resemblance to children.

Of course that would indeed indicate that Jeremiah is evil and belongs to Foul. Findail said this of the Kemper's son:

"That which he bore was no son of his flesh. It was of the croyel-beings of hunger and sustenance which demnify the dark places of the Earth. Those who bargain thus for life or might with the croyel are damned beyond redemption."

I wonder if the Croyel are the children of the Community of Retribution, who all left parts of their souls behind in the Land.

My only mark against this theory is that I thought the Kemper's son predated Jeremiah's arrival in the Land. But looking back at the text, that's just an assumption. We don't know how long Kasreyn had a Croyel for. It may have been only a short time.

I should also say we know that the Croyel are to feature in this story, and it seems the Elohim regard them as a specific current threat.

[native]

Then again, we have to look at the fact that he is found alongside Covenant. This is all kinds of weird now. Did Covenant rescue him? Did Foul somehow control Covenant now and is sending him back with Jeremiah just to mess with Linden?

I think we may have to examine the roll of the Demondin rather than Foul in raising up both Covenant and Jeremiah. Clearly they have the power and malice to raise up the dead and the disembodied. Quite what their motives are is another question. They may find the Vain element of the Staff of Law an affront to their wicked wurd.

[ur-James]

If Foul did "claim" Jeremiah, this could mean a number of things. It might mean he claimed Jeremiah 3,000 years ago when he first came to the Land. It might mean that Jeremiah is still a follower of Foul, or simply a creature of Despite. He started off as a Foul worshipper after all, and we have no evidence that he is a good person, just because Linden thinks of him as a son. Covenant's son is hardly a charmer after all.

Very interesting theory, one that I've seen quite a few times around here, and it's definitely intriguing.

But you claim that Jeremiah was a Foul worshipper, and that I don't believe. He was a child, only about 3 years old IIRC (I've only read Runes once, so I could be wrong), and at 3 years old, you don't really have a lucid grasp on something like that. Jeremiah put his hand in the fire because he was told to, compelled to by both Foul and his mother. He believed nothing, was not a worshipper of anything, so I think that would keep him beyond Foul's control. His influence, yes, but not his control. I think that you are right, that Jeremiah was mentally transported to the Land at the same time Covenant and Linden were.

Then you'd have to go back and try and figure out exactly how much time passed between the time that Linden and Thomas arrived in the Land until they arrived in Braitharealm (sp?). And when they were talking with their escort, didn't he fill them in on when Kasreyn showed up, did the whole Sandgorgon's Doom thing? Assuming that Kasreyn had the Croyel when he arrived there, he very well could have somehow acquired it after the fact.

I don't know, it's all wild speculation at best. I tend to go on hunches rather than take the time to research ideas. I'm too lazy for that, honestly. But something tells me that Foul didn't have Jeremiah at all, it was just a ruse to give Linden false belief, to make her go to any length to use power to get her son back. I just don't understand why Foul would go to the lengths to tell someone to tell Linden that he has Jeremiah. And if you've noticed, not once in all of Runes did someone come up to Linden and say "By the way, Foul's got your son. You know, in case you were wondering." I think that either 1.) She happened to overhear Foul telling someone (Raver, etc.) to tell Linden that he had his son when he didn't, to install a false belief in Linden, hoping that she would expend the wild magic, lose control, and damage the Arch enough to break it or 2.) He was telling no one, he was just saying it knowing that she was listening, installing a false belief, etc... or 3.) Was referring to Joan and not Linden, but I highly doubt that.

It just doesn't feel right to me, I don't know. I also don't think that the Covenant that comes back at the end of Runes is the real Thomas Covenant. Something else that just doesn't ring true with me. And with the title like Fatal Revenant, this is altogether possible. His spirit may still be in the Arch, but his body was left behind in Kiril Threndor.

James

[Prover of Life]

His spirit may still be in the Arch, but his body was left behind in Kiril Threndor

.
No, Pitchwife carried him out. Possibly back to Andelain.

[native]

And if you've noticed, not once in all of Runes did someone come up to Linden and say "By the way, Foul's got your son. You know, in case you were wondering." I think that either 1.) She happened to overhear Foul telling someone (Raver, etc.) to tell Linden that he had his son when he didn't, to install a false belief in Linden, hoping that she would expend the wild magic, lose control, and damage the Arch enough to break it or 2.) He was telling no one, he was just saying it knowing that she was listening, installing a false belief, etc... or 3.) Was referring to Joan and not Linden, but I highly doubt that.

I agree something is up, but Foul does say quite baldly at one point "I have your son" direct to Linden. And I find it hard to believe that Foul would demean himself with a crude lie. I don't think he ever has done before. So the answer may be complicated.

Then you'd have to go back and try and figure out exactly how much time passed between the time that Linden and Thomas arrived in the Land until they arrived in Braitharealm (sp?). And when they were talking with their escort, didn't he fill them in on when Kasreyn showed up, did the whole Sandgorgon's Doom thing? Assuming that Kasreyn had the Croyel when he arrived there, he very well could have somehow acquired it after the fact.

It may be that the Croyel came along afterwards. Kasreyn might have had power without it to master the Sandgorgons, and the Croyel gift was extreme longevity.

As an aside I note in passing the resemblance between Sandgorgon's Doom (the Gyre) and a caesure. I like the idea that the Sandgorgons were trapped by Kasreyn in another time-frame. If so, the Sandgorgons might all be due to appear in the next books, because we're told that most of the Caesures lead to the timeframe of Runes. I might add that the Sandgorgons seem to share at least some of the capacity of the Ranhym to anticipate their summons, which points to a similar time sense.

[wayfriend]

Then I wondered if he was telling the truth at all.

A valid question. So many of the other visions were lies. Also, he may have been referring to having Roger, Joan's son. Maybe he think's Roger is Linden's son, even.

One thing that peaks my curiousity: Foul seems rather insistent that he can force Jeremiah to serve him. He mentions this several times. If it's true, then this qualifies as 'has him' in my book.

Remember - Foul's assertions usually turn out to be true. I don't think he would lie, he thinks too highly of himself and his plans. He likes to scare people with the truth. "You will place the ring in my hand", etc.

That whole translation scene into the Land was *very* cryptic...

Yes.

If you look at it closely, you'll see that there are 5 people possibly translated. Linden, Jeremiah, Roger, Joan, and ... Sandy Eastwall. Sandy is also lying on that rock. If you harken back to Sandy's earlier unexplained 'premonitions' that evening, you have to wonder if maybe she didn't get a visit from old ochre robe.

Also, you have to question if the visions of rousing the Worm were meant to foretell Linden doing this, or Joan doing this, with Linden experiencing it through Joan.

My personal view is that as Jeremiah came to the Land in spirit 3,000 years ago

There are three distinct clues in opposition to this theory.

One, at the end of ROTH, Jeremiah (if it was him) was seen wearing his pajamas. Aside from the ludicrous possibility of wearing them for 3,500 years ... if Jeremiah came to the land during TWL, he'd be wearing what he wore at that time, which was a burlap sack. Unless in the intervening years he changed into something else. But he would not be wearing pajamas.

Two, if Jeremiah was summoned during TWL, then he would have returned when Linden returned, when his summoner, Foul, was 'deadish'. Only those who die in the real world are exempt (Covenant, Troy).

Three, if Jeremiah's mind was in the land but his body remained in the real world, then when he was summoned he would be re-united. This is what many claim, as it explains Jeremiah's animated nature when we meet up with him. He's been finally made whole. Why, then, would Foul persist in calling him a 'vacant son'? Doesn't make sense.

You can find tricksy ideas to work around all these issues, but that's too much squirming for me. I discount the theory instead.

[I'm Murrin]

There's an interesting question underlying all this 'Does Foul have Jeremiah' stuff. Does Lord Foul lie? Do we know of any occaision so far where Foul has undoubtedly lied, not just decieved and misdirected?

[native]

Three, if Jeremiah's mind was in the land but his body remained in the real world, then when he was summoned he would be re-united. This is what many claim, as it explains Jeremiah's animated nature when we meet up with him. He's been finally made whole. Why, then, would Foul persist in calling him a 'vacant son'? Doesn't make sense.

I don't think much squirming is required on this latter one. We pretty much know Jeremiah isn't vacant in the Land, regardless of what Foul says. No speculation required, unless you think that's in some way not Jeremiah at the end there.

[wayfriend]

Why, then, would Foul persist in calling him a 'vacant son'? Doesn't make sense.

I don't think much squirming is required on this latter one. We pretty much know Jeremiah isn't vacant in the Land, regardless of what Foul says. No speculation required, unless you think that's in some way not Jeremiah at the end there.

Eh? Do you have an explanation of why Foul would say 'vacant' if Jeremiah wasn't? Or of how we know he wasn't. We can't tell if you're squirming until we hear it.

[High Lord Tolkien]

But you claim that Jeremiah was a Foul worshipper, and that I don't believe. He was a child, only about 3 years old IIRC (I've only read Runes once, so I could be wrong), and at 3 years old, you don't really have a lucid grasp on something like that. Jeremiah put his hand in the fire because he was told to, compelled to by both Foul and his mother. He believed nothing, was not a worshipper of anything, so I think that would keep him beyond Foul's control. His influence, yes, but not his control. I think that you are right, that Jeremiah was mentally transported to the Land at the same time Covenant and Linden were.

James

What about Piettin(spelling?) the little boy that the Ramen "adopt"in LFB and we seen grown up in tPtP.
How old was he when the urviles messed him up?
idhtbifom, but I think he was very young too.
So it's possible.
I don't think so but ....

[ur-James]

And I find it hard to believe that Foul would demean himself with a crude lie. I don't think he ever has done before. So the answer may be complicated.

This is the only flaw in my theory. A lie this flimsy and crude is beneath him. He's usually a little more complicated in his planning than that. And I can't recall any particular situation where Foul has outright lied, so there is that as well. Again, this all just a hunch with me, but I just can't shake the feeling that he's being misleading.

James

[native]

Eh? Do you have an explanation of why Foul would say 'vacant' if Jeremiah wasn't? Or of how we know he wasn't. We can't tell if you're squirming until we hear it.

Well Foul simply appears to be misleading or just plain wrong on this point. We've seen for ourselves that Jeremiah isn't vacant. Why Foul said what he said is a slightly different thing to whether he was being accurate.

Of course it does raise the possibility that Foul was fibbing, that Jeremiah was vacant at the time of the comment, or Foul was engaged in some kind of sophistry. But it's difficult to base an argument on the proposition that Jeremiah was vacant (just because Foul says he is) when we have seen for ourselves that this is not the case. In fairness you have to conceed that it isn't squirming to say Jeremiah isn't vacant. We know he isn't - at least by the end of the book and assuming that is Jeremiah.

[Jerico]

Foul telling Linden about having her 'vacant son' could be explained like this.
Remember Roger just before the shoot out talking to Linden and saying something like 'I like what your parents did to you. Don't you know who i am?"
Well I think at the time Roger was controlled by Foul. So he knows that Jerimiah is empty. "He's just empty meat. has been for the last ten years" Roger says again at one point.
Then on the translation to the Land something happens that takes Jerimiah from Roger/Foul. Maybe Foul left Rogers body whan he was shot by the troops, (I know that's when I would have split).
So Foul knows that Jerimiah is in the Land, and since Linden mentions he lost son to Anele right before Foul takes him over. I assume that is why he uses it to torment Linden. He is the Despiser, that's what he wants from her.

[wayfriend]

We've seen for ourselves that Jeremiah isn't vacant.

... or, did we?

Well I think at the time Roger was controlled by Foul. So he knows that Jerimiah is empty.

Actually, his conversation with Megan Roman is sufficient to explain this knowledge.

[Lucky Jim]

This is the only flaw in my theory. A lie this flimsy and crude is beneath him. He's usually a little more complicated in his planning than that. And I can't recall any particular situation where Foul has outright lied, so there is that as well. Again, this all just a hunch with me, but I just can't shake the feeling that he's being misleading.

James

This bit reminded me of something I always found interesting in The Power that Preserves. I assumed when I was reading the final chapters that Foul was aware of Covenant and Foamfollower's progress through the depths of the Creche. Yet when they show up Foul is surprised.

Now, were I Foul, I'd have pulled myself together and acted as though they were expected - what better way to throw off an adversary? Instead, Foul admits he's been taken unawares and the scene progresses. This, I think, speaks to the hubris of an immortal and powerful being that has little use for unsubtle, impromptu and bald faced lies. Regardless of whether they might serve one in the moment.

[Nerdanel]

I'm surprised nobody in this thread has mentioned this scenario for "Tell her I have her son" which I think is by far the most likely and about the only that makes more than tortured sense.

Foul is telling Herem to tell Joan that Foul has Roger.

It's as simple as that. Herem is possessing Joan but Joan is not internally incapable of understanding speech, as is also seen in the scene where Roger goes to meet her. Joan is needed by Foul to be nice and despairing in order to keep producing caesures, and Roger is one of her weak points.

I believe Foul was speaking the truth about Jeremiah. Things are Not Right about the appearance of Jeremiah and Covenant in the end.

[ur-bane]

That's actually a very good point, Nerdanel.

"It is enough," Lord Foul said sofly. "I am content." his tone wrapped around her
caressingly, like the oil of cerements and death. "She will work my will, and I will be
freed at last."
He may have been speaking to Joan. Or to turiya Herem.

This passage tells us that Linden is overhearing a conversation, but that the words are not spoken directly to her. It continues:

Then the shock of her power rebounded against her, and she was flung away as if in
rejection; as if the abyss itself sought to vomit her out.
For a moment longer, she could hear the Despiser. As his voice receded, he said,
"Tell her that I have her son."

Now, however, we don't know to whom Foul is speaking. Is he speaking to Joan, about Jeremiah? That Joan should tell Linden this? Maybe. But then, why didn't Foul just speak directly to Linden: "I have your son."

This really seems to indicate that Foul is in fact speaking about Roger.

I think you hit the nail on the head Nerdanel. Very good find!

[dlbpharmd]

We actually have discussed this before, but I don't remember which thread. I'll try to find it and bump it up.