Change of perception

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find the thread.

When I first read TCTC, my view of Covenant was relatively sympathetic. A stranger in a strange land, dealing with an apparent impossibility in the only way he'd been taught could realistically ensure his survival. Having begun to reread the series, I find myself pondering the bit of philosophy Covenant reads about ethics, and seeing a coward rather than a hero in the young Covenant. Whether this is because I know the ultimate outcome of his actions or because I've changed, I don't know. Later in the series, where I once saw a determined man, I now see an inflexible one. Again, I don't know why my perceptions have changed, and I don't want to argue whether he is or isn't one thing or another.

What I want to know is this: Has your perception of Covenant or the other characters changed over time, and if so, how? Do you know why? Was it gradual, or did you have a moment of epiphany?

[Cheval]

At first, I thought that TC was a real A-hole.
After a while, he grew into one of those people you love to hate.
(All of that self-loathing suited him fine, IMO.)
But when I was finishing the First Chronicles, I was actually rooting for him!
I guess that was the "Anti-hero" in SDR's writings.

[CovenantJr]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find the thread.

When I first read TCTC, my view of Covenant was relatively sympathetic. A stranger in a strange land, dealing with an apparent impossibility in the only way he'd been taught could realistically ensure his survival. Having begun to reread the series, I find myself pondering the bit of philosophy Covenant reads about ethics, and seeing a coward rather than a hero in the young Covenant. Whether this is because I know the ultimate outcome of his actions or because I've changed, I don't know. Later in the series, where I once saw a determined man, I now see an inflexible one. Again, I don't know why my perceptions have changed, and I don't want to argue whether he is or isn't one thing or another.

What I want to know is this: Has your perception of Covenant or the other characters changed over time, and if so, how? Do you know why? Was it gradual, or did you have a moment of epiphany?

It's been more or less the opposite for me. I respect Covenant more and more as time goes on, for his weakness as much as his strength.

[sgt.null]

my dislike of Thomas only grew in degrees greater than first thought. I now see him as impotent, and the rape only disgusts me more.

[Usivius]

My perceptions of TC have changed from my first reading, about 17 years ago. At that time I felt that I totally understood him on an intellectual level and (especially) emotional one. As I have grown older (and hopefully wiser), I don't view my former opinion of the character as wrong, but what I needed at that time to see me through a difficult time in my life.

Now, a part of me sees TC as whiny, pathetic, and a little cowardly, but I understand that this is the way that character needed to be at that time to see his way through his situation (the same as me at the time of my first reading). For TC it was about keeping his sanity, trying desparately not to hurt anyone, and (inadvertantly) save people.

Changed opinion or view, yes, but not lack of understanding and respect for the character.

[wayfriend]

When I first read the Chronicles 23 years ago, as a depressed college student, I read a story about a man who was resolute and triumphant in the face of vast despair. At the time, such an example was something that I needed.

When I read the Chronicles now, as a struggling family man, I read a story about integrity, hope, and love. Maybe in the future, I'll look back and say that that's what I needed.

SRD himself says that there are two contributors when you read something: the author and the reader.

After all, story-telling in print is an interactive process, and the reader's contributions are both necessary and valid.

So I guess that changes in me cause changes in how I read the Chronicles. I don't suspect it has anything to do with how much I know what is going to happen. It's all about how I am living my life at the time.

Now, I didn't ever form a moral judgement about Covenant, then or now. It's not part of my reading process. As a reader, it's my job to empathize with the protagonist - at least, it should be, if you want to get the most out of the story. Whatever he is, I can become. So judgement of the character cannot be part of the process: I am apply myself to Covenant and his view, not applying Covenant to myself and mine.

[Usivius]

well spoken wayfriend

[Zarathustra]

My opinion hasn't really changed, only deepened.

Covenant's rape doesn't disgust me, except in as much as one doing damage to himself is disgusting (and at the same time worthy of pity). As many of you know, I don't think the Land is literally real, but instead metaphorically real. Lena's rape was actually Covenant raping himself. Think about that. Rape is fundamentally something that is done to another, an effort to gain power over another. When you rape yourself, you are making yourself Other. You are taking part of yourself and inauthentically separating it from you (because you hate it), and then you attack it in an attempt to gain mastery/potency/victory over it. It's pathetic, really. But it's much more evil than simple rape. And for those reasons, it is much more worthy of sympathy than raping another person. It is self-alienation, inauthenticity, and futile attempt at self-transcendence all at the same time. Really, that act of rape is a symbol of what we are all going through, and how we betray ourselves in an attempt to simultaneously deny those parts of ourselves we don't like and triumph over them at the same time.

Lena represented health, youth, vitality, sexuality--LIFE. She was a health that Covenant couldn't have. Fundamentally, this represents a health that none of us can have, because we are each slowly dying. Maybe our process of death isn't as explicit as a leper's, but make no mistake, it is just as real. If we don't notice it, if we're not as preoccupied with its reality as much as Covenant is, this is only because we are less authentic, more distracted. So this impossible health that none of us can have--the desire of all of us to be beautiful and immortal--this was a torment to Covenant. It would be equally tortuous to us if we just faced it authentically. So when he was faced with it, Covenant tried to possess it, tried to overpower it. And in doing so, he raped himself. Forcible mental masturbation. He is futilely trying to overpower his own fear of death, and this is his greatest crime against himself.

I could go on and on. Like I said, my appreciation has only deepened.

[Stave]

Personally my opinion of Covenant greatly changed, however, it only changed as Covenant himself did. At the very beginning of the books I felt sympathy for the Covenant that I barely new. Then as Covenant entered the land and started to show his cowardice, I couldn't stand him. If it hadn't been for the other remarkable characters, I probably would have quit reading the books. Later in the first chronicles, and throughout the second chronicles Covenant developed into a much different character. As he fought and slowly but surely defeated his despair, he became a much more likeable character for me. By the middle of the second chronicles, I had tremendous amounts of respect for Covenant, and didn't even question his decision to give the ring to Foul. So although in a way my views on Covenant changed, if Covenant had been a static character, I don't think that they would have. No amount of persuasion could have made me liked the Covenant from the beginning of the series. And in turn, no amount of persuasion could have made me lose respect for the Covenant at at the closing of the second chronicles. My views for Covenant changed as his character developed and evolved.