WGW: What Actually Happened?

[Prom_STar]

Can anyone explain to me what happened exactly at the end of WGW? Foul gets the ring, Covenant dies, Foul starts shooting power at the Arch, Covenant shows up and "blocks" the power. Foul shrivels up.

Huh?
Why couldn't Foul break the Arch and escape? It seems the general concensus is Foul would have done so had he acquired the ring in the First Chronicles. What's so different in the Second?

[dlbpharmd]

Covenant stood between Foul and the AoT, and absorbed the power that Foul was using.

[wayfriend]

See The Dissection of this chapter for starters.

[Zarathustra]

As some of you may remember, I subscribe to the "internal" interpretation of the Chronicles. So it may not come as a surprise that I think what's happening at the end of WGW is just TC finally looking at his own internal Despiser authentically.

Authenticity. I think this is the most important point of the Chronicles: to face reality with unflinching courage, the kind of courage that allows you to accept your guilt at raping a young girl, to accept your responsibility as a free agent in the world, to accept your own potential for violence and Desecration. Lord Foul isn't some foreign enemy, but the enemy within. Most of us are uncomfortable thinking about how we all have the potential within us to do horrible things--and we especially don't like to think about bad things we have already done. (Hell, I've been avoiding this forum for a few weeks because I've made an ass of myself in a few discussions.) It's part of being human.

So how does this help us understand the end of The White Gold Wielder? Let's first look at what happened at the end of TPTP: Covenant's previous solution was strength, resistance, fighting Despite. And that is a valid solution up to a point. We must fight against our own potential for "evil," constanly overcoming it on a daily basis. But if we take that battle too far, it becomes denial. We cannot fight Despite to the very end, because we ultimately cannot rid ourselves of it completely (hence TC's unwillingness to completely kill Foul in TPTP). To make such an attempt is inauthentic, because it denies this essential part of ourselves. No one can force themselves to be perfect.

At the end of WGW, Covenant is accepting his own despite, and taking it upon himself. He is allowing himself to be human, to be imperfect, to be mortal. Afterall, his victory in the Banefire wasn't a purge of the venom, but a FUSING of the venom with the wild magic. It isn't about getting the venom out of his being, but instead not allowing that venom to get out and wreak havoc upon the lives of those around him. Control. Wild magic is passion; and passion isn't always pure. Sometimes passion is angry and violent. Wild.

So by Covenant allowing LF to attack him rather than the Arch, he is absorbing his own despite upon himself, accepting it as part of himself as a way to contain it, not allowing it to hurt those around him--but instead taking that pain upon himself. "I wouldn't dream of fighting you." He is no longer fighting his dark side. "All you can do is hurt me. But pain doesn't last. It just makes me stronger."

By giving Foul the ring, he is acknowledging the venom in his passion, giving his passion over to their more negative aspects. But he is containing their affects through acceptance.

"But each assault hit nothing except the specter, hurt nothing except Covenant. Blast after blast, he absorbed the power of Despite and fire and became stronger. Surrendering to their
savagery, he transcended them . . . He became an unbreakable bulwark raised like glory against destruction.
At the same time, each attack made Lord Foul weaker. Covenant was a barrier the Despiser could not pierce because it did not resist him;"

Because Covenant did not resist his Despiser, he had the power to contain it. It is denial that causes us to fling our malice outwards upon each other. We want others to hurt because we cannot stand/accept our own pain. But Covenant learns the paradoxical solution of defeating-Despite-though-accepting-it.

I think that's cool.

[Sunbaneglasses]

(Condensed Version):Lord Foul was just hurling Covenants own power at him,which could not hurt him,well at least not his spectre anyway.The exertion/emotional collapse Foul experienced at his failure made him fade away,at least for a while.

[dlbpharmd]

Great post Malik.

[caamora]

Agreed, great post, Malik.

[Prom_STar]

Very nice, Malik.

I confess I haven't looked at the Chronciles that way before. I've always maintained a certain superficiality--I just enjoy the read. But I'm starting to realize that beneath the surface is where the real wonder lies. Donaldson gave us so much more gold (white of course) than I had realized.

[matrixman]

It's basically impossible for me to read the Chronicles superficially. I love these books because there is so much below the surface.

To add to the compliments: Superb post, Malik.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Loved it Malik!
I too am a big believer in the "internal" interpretation of the Chronicles.

But if what you say is true how do you reconcile it to Foul returning in the 3rd Chronicles?
Are TC and Foul now "melded" in a way?
I think so.
There can no longer be any direct confrontation (I'm not talking about TC being dead either) between the two.
TC has accepted Foul.
There's no way Foul can ever break the Arch by himself now even if he has the ring.

Is the 3rd series about TC coming to accept or reject himself as the Creator?

And, all THOOLAH jokes aside) what is "Linden" in the internal story?
And what is the Arch itself if the story is internal?
Anyone have any ideas?

[caamora]

You're right. There is no "internal story" for Linden. It is as if her very presence in the books make the Land "real" and no longer an "internal story" for TC.

I never thought about that before.

[Sunbaneglasses]

Yes,awesome post!

[Roynish]

As some of you may remember, I subscribe to the "internal" interpretation of the Chronicles. So it may not come as a surprise that I think what's happening at the end of WGW is just TC finally looking at his own internal Despiser authentically.

Authenticity. I think this is the most important point of the Chronicles: to face reality with unflinching courage, the kind of courage that allows you to accept your guilt at raping a young girl, to accept your responsibility as a free agent in the world, to accept your own potential for violence and Desecration. Lord Foul isn't some foreign enemy, but the enemy within. Most of us are uncomfortable thinking about how we all have the potential within us to do horrible things--and we especially don't like to think about bad things we have already done. (Hell, I've been avoiding this forum for a few weeks because I've made an ass of myself in a few discussions.) It's part of being human.

So how does this help us understand the end of The White Gold Wielder? Let's first look at what happened at the end of TPTP: Covenant's previous solution was strength, resistance, fighting Despite. And that is a valid solution up to a point. We must fight against our own potential for "evil," constanly overcoming it on a daily basis. But if we take that battle too far, it becomes denial. We cannot fight Despite to the very end, because we ultimately cannot rid ourselves of it completely (hence TC's unwillingness to completely kill Foul in TPTP). To make such an attempt is inauthentic, because it denies this essential part of ourselves. No one can force themselves to be perfect.

At the end of WGW, Covenant is accepting his own despite, and taking it upon himself. He is allowing himself to be human, to be imperfect, to be mortal. Afterall, his victory in the Banefire wasn't a purge of the venom, but a FUSING of the venom with the wild magic. It isn't about getting the venom out of his being, but instead not allowing that venom to get out and wreak havoc upon the lives of those around him. Control. Wild magic is passion; and passion isn't always pure. Sometimes passion is angry and violent. Wild.

So by Covenant allowing LF to attack him rather than the Arch, he is absorbing his own despite upon himself, accepting it as part of himself as a way to contain it, not allowing it to hurt those around him--but instead taking that pain upon himself. "I wouldn't dream of fighting you." He is no longer fighting his dark side. "All you can do is hurt me. But pain doesn't last. It just makes me stronger."

By giving Foul the ring, he is acknowledging the venom in his passion, giving his passion over to their more negative aspects. But he is containing their affects through acceptance.

"But each assault hit nothing except the specter, hurt nothing except Covenant. Blast after blast, he absorbed the power of Despite and fire and became stronger. Surrendering to their
savagery, he transcended them . . . He became an unbreakable bulwark raised like glory against destruction.
At the same time, each attack made Lord Foul weaker. Covenant was a barrier the Despiser could not pierce because it did not resist him;"

Because Covenant did not resist his Despiser, he had the power to contain it. It is denial that causes us to fling our malice outwards upon each other. We want others to hurt because we cannot stand/accept our own pain. But Covenant learns the paradoxical solution of defeating-Despite-though-accepting-it.

I think that's cool.

So is the internal view that its all happening inside his head. Or is it both of course. The word dream seems somewhat laden with trivilality .. But is it a war within our heads that is the most importent one.

[Creator]

I believe in an external view. [Romantic that I am to think that I *might* journey to a "Land" absent Covenant! ]

Two thoughts:

First, Malik - Great Post. However, one element you didn't cover was Covenant baiting Lord Foul so that he would burn the venom out of him. Covenant did not want wild magic to be a fusion of venom and white gold. That seems to me to be an externality.

Second, as HLT has noted. Covenant is DEAD in the "real world" - hard for him to influence an Internal Land.

My, above thoughts notwithstanding. I think SRD is closer to Malik's Internal. I believe he'll find someway to bridge Covenant, Joan, and Linden in a psychic menage-a-trois.

[Zarathustra]

You're right. There is no "internal story" for Linden. It is as if her very presence in the books make the Land "real" and no longer an "internal story" for TC.

The internal/external thing has been covered in other threads. But let me briefly say that I don't think Linden (or anyone else from TC's world) violates the internal interpretation, any more than Jung's theory of collective unconsciousness violates the internal nature of our metaphorical archetypes. There are things we can share "internally," so to speak. Something can be universal and "internal" at the same time. Numbers are another example. "Two" doesn't exist in the external world as an object, yet my understanding of "two-ness" is not distinct from your understanding of "two-ness." As long as we both understand "two-ness" correctly, we are understanding the same concept, even though our concepts are experienced internally. There is something about numbers and logic that transcends subjective experience--even though that's the only place that they actually exist. These universal-yet-internal objects are called "ideal objects" by phenomenologists like Edmond Husserl. (So don't blame me if you think this idea doesn't make sense. )


Okay, so it's impossible for me to give a brief answer. Let me add that we don't have to consider ideal objects in order to have an example of something that is "internal" yet at the same time shared. Our world of everyday experience is just such a place. We experience it internally, as a collection of perceptions. Yet, these internal perceptions disclose a world which is also experienced through the internal perceptions of others. Thus, the whole internal/external dichotomy becomes more problematic the more you think about it (which is one of the reasons why Donaldson drops it).

In the end, the internal/external dichotomy doesn't matter as an ontological question; i.e., the "reality status" of the Land doesn't matter. It's a fictional world. It's a work of fantasy. The only reason I keep saying that the Land is internal is to highlight the relationship between the Land and Thomas Covenant (or any other character of the "real world"). This relationship is one of mythic metaphor. SDR himself has said that he views fantasy literature as a genre in which internal aspects of the characters are externalized and personified into worlds and beings which they can confront directly in the course of a story. All you have to do is read his work and connect the dots from there.

I think many of you are treating TC's "real world" as if it were actually the Real World, and that's where all the confusion comes from (SDR has repeatedly been frustrated with this on the GI). Remember, TC's "real world" is a fictional world, too; IT IS ALSO A FANTASY REALM. I'm not being condescending: if you keep that distinction in mind, you won't have problems with multiple characters entering a quasi-metaphorical, intersubjective fantasy Land. Stuff like that happens in fantasy novels.

But if what you say is true how do you reconcile it to Foul returning in the 3rd Chronicles? Are TC and Foul now "melded" in a way?

I haven't given much thought to this, but yeah, I think you're right. They are melded narratively (in terms of the story) becuase they are melded thematically (in terms of what the story means). In other words, because TC has accepted his inner Despiser, he has become one with it.

Is the 3rd series about TC coming to accept or reject himself as the Creator?

My god, why didn't I thnk of that?!? That's excellent. I think that is EXACTLY the next step. What else could the LC be? It completes the cycle nicely--except that it must be acceptance, rather than rejection, that TC achieves.

And, all THOOLAH jokes aside) what is "Linden" in the internal story?
And what is the Arch itself if the story is internal?
Anyone have any ideas?

Linden is Linden, just as Covenant is Covenant. I don't see a problem with fictional characters inhabiting each other's internal myth worlds. Let me add that I don't think Lord Foul is ONLY a symbol of TC's inner Despiser, but also a symbol of EVERYONE'S inner Despiser. Thus, LF is a different "individual" to each character. When Linden confronts LF, she is confronting her own inner Despiser. LF is more an archetype, a universal symbol, than an individual character. SDR has hinted at this himself, when he describes how blatent the name "Lord Foul" is. He has blatently made him a symbol of "evil," among other things.

The arch? I think it is the space/time fabric of the myth world. Haven't given it much thought, I'm afraid.

One last thing, what the hell is "THOOLAH"? (I'm assuming "Linden Avery" is part of that acronym. What's the rest?)

[dlbpharmd]

THOOLAH - The Holy Order of Linden Avery Haters.

[exnihilo]

Malik, thank you for two of the most insightful posts I have ever read about TCTC. Although I am a lay person, I have some familiarity with Jungian theories, and it has been my experience that these theories dovetail nicely with Donaldson's stated perspective on his own works. I would only add a couple of remarks, FWIW.

First, as you seem to hint, Jungian theory posits an archetypal realm (or noosphere) that exists in its own right. Consequently, pneuma (objects of the spirit) may be experienced "subjectively" by more than one person at a time; thus the Linden Avery and Hile Troy (though Troy's "objective" existence remains ambiguous in the series) problems are not problems at all. Second, based on this, it might not be necessary to speak of subjective experiences of various characters as though they are sympathetically linked internal constructs; we can, as might be hinted by your description of "objective" reality, posit a shared experience of a particular aspect of the archetypal realm. I am not adequate to the task of unravelling who is projecting what archetype onto whom, but it does seem clear that Covenant and Linden have a special realtionship that is at least partially archetypal (at a minimum they love each another, which at least suggests a mutual recognition of anima and animus -- a reading I find highly supported by the text), and this could be theorized to serve as a link between their experiences.

I apologize if this post is too arcane. And, I also realize that I am guilty of parsing the hypothetical plausibility of a wholly fictional construct, as you describe above. But it sure is fun!

[exnihilo]

PS In some ways, we might be said to represent aspects of the archetypes, not vice versa.

[Zarathustra]

Exnihilo, I'm very much a lay person, as well. You sound like you know more about Jung than I do. I have forgotten so much of what I've read!

Thank you for your kind words--and thanks to all the others who have suffered through my long posts and managed to still be complimentary.

we might be said to represent aspects of the archetypes, not vice versa.

This is very interesting, and a discussion of it will inevitably reveal just how shallow my knowledge of Jung is. Are you saying that the archetypes of which Jung speaks are pre-existing, independent of humans? Something we approximate individually? Something "discovered" rather than "created" in the course of human existence?

I've always thought of them as universal symbols that reoccur throughout history and cultures due to their universal applicability to the human condition, something to which we all relate on an "unconscious" level by virtue of experiencing life as human beings and passing through the same stages and relationships each human experiences regardless of time and culture--leading to the production of similar, repeating motifs and symbols of the various mythological systems throughout history. In other words, because humans have accumulated a history of similar relationships/experiences, these similarities have become rooted in our being, and the archetypes arise in our stories and myths as an expression of these deep-rooted similarities of experience.

On the other hand, your statement seems to imply that Jungian archetypes are more like Platonic Forms, something pre-existing which are discovered in the course of examining many instances of particular approximations of a universal Form. While I'll agree that there is something very Platonic about Husserlian Ideal Objects, I disagree that this applies to Jungian archetypes. But I'm willing to be corrected.

[exnihilo]

Malik, I appreciate the challenge of answering your question although I am dismayed by my own inadequacy to the task. I don't feel able to expound Jungian theory like an authority on the subject, because I am not. Basically all I can provide is my own limited understanding based on my personal reading of certain of Jung's works; I am certainly no representative of the offical line of the school of analytical psychology.

Caveats aside, this is my take on your question, which seems to be: are archetypes either discovered, or created, by human experience (in Jungian theory and/or in my opinion)?

My opinion of Jungian theory is that it believes that archetypes are discovered (and re-discovered) via human experience, not created. The conceit of our culture, which is largely materialist/rationalist in temperment and consequently marked by an acute spiritual poverty (to appropriate Jung's own phrase), tries to imagine spiritual events as derivative aspects of consciousness. Jungian theory tends to reverse the causality: consciousness is viewed as a relatively small realm of light that is an aspect of -- and, paradoxically, an opposition to -- the surrounding sea of roiling darkness. Your statement of the formula seems to be that we have shared experiences of the archetypes because we have shared conscious experiences, while I believe Jung would say that shared conscious experiences are evidence of a shared access to the same archetypes.

However -- and I feel myself standing on shaky ground in terms of my own expertise -- Jung also allows for the idea of an inherited (possibly genetic in part) temperment that influences one's experience of the archetypes. This is to say that the western mind may not experience or need the archetypes in the same way as the eastern mind. Our history and culture makes us distinct, and changes our relationships to the archetypes in qualitative ways. I don't think that is a misstatement of Jungian theory, but I feel cautious about asserting that it is the full truth of the matter. In any event, this was one of the more controversial aspects of Jungian theory.

Personally, I think Jung was pretty close to the mark, but I reserve the right to differ with him on the nuances of the matter.