What is the central message that SRD is trying to convey?...

[Avatar]

Agreed Tulizar. Meaning is inherent, but message isn't necessarily.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Tolkein denied to his dying day that LotR was a metaphor for Hitler/WWII etc.

I think too many of us here are taking the above as the model for a story having a deeper meaning. A story doesn't have to be a metaphor for an external political or social event in order for that story to have meaning. Let's call this "allegory," and stop implying that it is synonymous with "deeper meaning." If you're arguing that SRD's books don't have THIS kind of "meaning," then yes, you are right. We can all agree that his books aren't allegorical. However, a book can have a deeper meaning without that meaning being external to the story itself.

Tolkien's denial was easy: Hitler was never a character in his book. However, SRD's denial is a bit more complex: Despite is a character. Lord Foul is despite personified. It's in his friggin' title! If Donaldson is actually pretending that Lord Foul the Despiser isn't a symbolic, archetypal character--hence, a character with deeper meaning--then he's lost it.

You don't have to look very deep to see SRD's "deeper" meaning. It's right there on the surface. It's undeniable that issues such as reality vs illusion are INTENTIONALLY part of SRD's "deeper meaning." He has the characters talk about it themselves! To say that this is something which the reader brings to the story is ludicrous. I didn't make TC and LA have that discussion in TWL. Donaldson did.

Again, I didn't impose the issue: "how to have hope in the face of hopeless situations" upon these books--Foamfollower and Covenant have this discussion themselves.

In addition, issues like being true to yourself, coping with mortality and loss, facing your guilt, taking responsibility for your actions, finding an answer to despite--these things are right there on the surface, too. These are things the characters themselves go through. So again, it's impossible to say these "deeper meanings" are imposed by the reader.

A wise Watcher once said:

. . .this isn't something hidden, some "deeper" level of meaning which we must discover by tracing the one-to-one relationship between symbol and that which is symbolized. On the contrary, SRD makes it explicit by having Covenant confront an essentially internal (perhaps even "spiritual") problem in an external form. SRD never tries to hide the fact that Covenant is struggling to come to grips with his guilt, his mortality etc., for these things make up Covenant's entire character arc.

Ok sure, it's a story. But a story about what? Answer: characters facing an existential crisis of Being.

[Avatar]

I certainly agree with you about the meanings inherent in the books, especially the explicit ones, which are issues directly addressed.

I suppose you could break down my ideas about "message" in terms of allegory. That's essentially what I'm talking about afterall, allegory and metaphor.

What I'm really railing against is when people say things like, "but what did the pool represent?" That is the type of message that I think the reader brings to the story. It doesn't mean that the author intended that message to be carried across.

Explicit meaning is obviously inserted by the author, and made explicit by the fact that, as you point out, characters address them directly.

The meaning or message of anything not explicitly addressed though must per force be subjective in terms of interpretation.

(Nice to see you around Malik. )

--A

[Torrent]

In a nutshell: Self-hatred isn't the way to redemption or the answer to guilt.
And: There is also love in the world.

When I first read them: Never give up. There's always a way to go on, even if it's hard.

I guess that's my personal 'message', but not necessarily everyone's. But in terms of message and meaning I think no book has ever made me question myself as much as the Chronicles. These books make me feel like such a big, pathetic coward.

[Tjol]

Well, perhaps it would illustrate things better if everyone starts presenting what they took from the books?

When the variation in themes that people took from the story come out, can we admit there wasn't a heavy handed message intended, but rather a rich experience?

So let's run through the themes I experienced the first time: First and foremost perserverence. Perserverence meant a lot to me as a teenager and still does. Even if it's obvious you're going to lose, if you're fighting for the right thing keep fighting.

In the first story it's only redemption, and TC isn't even trying for it, but once illearth and the power that preserves happen, TC gets more and more debt placed upon him that he needs to redeem himself for. Eventually in order to redeem himself, he must perservere with the debt that he carries upon himself... and even then it costs everyone else more than him.

I guess there's a theme of self reliance being one of the greater expressions of loving your fellow man, given all the things people suffer simply to keep TC on his two feet, because he can't do it himself. Being an oldest child, self reliance meant a lot to me as a teenager as well.

Rereading as an adult, I see a series of ethical quanderies placed upon various characters who earned my awe or pity based on their performance, and based on the consequence of their choice. The elohim's tests on the giants, the story of pitchwife and the first, seadreamer's fate, honninscrave's fate, the temptation of the lords by ravers, Vain's stoic pursuit of his fate...

but the ethical quandries dont have a 'this was the right choice this was the wrong choice' nature, but rather a this is how it worked out because of these decisions, sum totals of what were good decisions can add up to bad results, and vice versa. It's not shallow moral relatavism either, but to me, it's that no one action alone is the end of the world, and yet no great action alone is enough to stop the end of the world.

Did SRD plan for me to take that from the story? Or did he write a story so thorough and rich that it was only one among many possible things to take from the story?

p.s. I agree the story had meaning, but not a singular intended message.

[Avatar]

...there wasn't a heavy handed message intended, but rather a rich experience?

Well said Tjol.

--A

[Torrent]

So let's run through the themes I experienced the first time: First and foremost perserverence. Perserverence meant a lot to me as a teenager and still does. Even if it's obvious you're going to lose, if you're fighting for the right thing keep fighting.

Ah, yes, that's the word.

I don't even know if it makes a difference if Donaldson put this message in his writing consciously or not. It was in there, for me, and I guess that's what counts because at the time it really helped me in a way.

I find myself thinking too much about narrative technique and what the author intended and stuff like that now that I'm reading "Runes", and sometimes I wish I could go back to this innocence of just taking everything as real and true instead of thinking about possible future plot twists.

[Avatar]

Being an undemanding reader, I'm thankful that I can still enjoy a story without having to wonder about al those things.

--A

[Torrent]

I guess I was spoilt by films like "The Usual Subjects", "Fight Club", "The Others"...I don't trust what I see anymore. And with books it's just the same.

[Avatar]

But isn't it better to not anticipate the twist?

--A

[Torrent]

Yes, definitely. But I just can't stop thinking.

[iQuestor]

You know, TCTC is the series I wish I could forget entirely, so I could read it for the first time all over again. I was only 18 when I read them the first time, and I was a different person then. I have read them 6 times, and still pick up sifferent things, different viewpoints each time. Is this because I do forget, or because I am also changing as a person?

I dont think that we as readers will read the same story SRD wrote, if you know what I mean. I am sure he has some of his own viewpoints and messages, but the story is always subject to the interpretation of the reader, and so is different each time.

Interpretations and messages belong to the reader's own insight, much as Foamfollower's comment: "Joy is in the ears that hear".

[Avatar]

Agreed. And it's both because we change and because we forget.

There are many series that I too wish I could read again from scratch, and I always envy people who are discovering them for the first time.

--A

[Mouseglove]

To me, the underlying message comes through as "To thine own self be true." I see the TC stories, and the Mordant's Need books, as a quest for identity, a quest for discovery of ones place in the greater scheme of things. I think that's why I'm able to "forgive" TC for his actions in LFB, and come to view him as someone to respect and even admire by the end of WGW: Everything he does is an attempt to find his true self, his own personal reality of "I" which can then be used as a platform from which to do the works he is meant to do.

[Zarathustra]

Mouseglove, I agree completely. I really think the series can be boiled down to: "Be true."

[iQuestor]

My Take:

TC definately grows as a person in the chronicles. I agree that he is endevouring to find himself and define his beliefs as a person throughout, especially after the rape. This act is, to me, is when he really begins to see the kind of person he has become, and that he is not who he thought he was.

He does eventually 'define' himself and figure out the fact of his life, and this allows him to make the kind of decisions and sacrifices that are necessary to save the land. He navigated a very narrow path between the creator's push and Foul's snares.

Therefore, for me, the defining epitath for the series can be boiled down to:

"Know Thyself."

[danlo]

This is one of the best takes I've seen in this thread...

Did SRD plan for me to take that from the story? Or did he write a story so thorough and rich that it was only one among many possible things to take from the story?

[Zarathustra]

Therefore, for me, the defining epitath for the series can be boiled down to:

"Know Thyself."

While no two-word summary of six books can ever be complete--even mine--I think knowing yourself is only the first step. Lots of people know themselves, and then deny what they've learned. Or look away from it. Or betray it. Knowing yourself is step one. Being true to yourself is step two.

After all, what keeps people from knowing themselves? How can you NOT know yourself? Isn't this "ignorance" based in an aversion which at its root is inauthenticity, i.e., not being true?

[wayfriend]

My Take: "Know Thyself."

I think that's almost it.

If he has a central message, I think it's stated when he says
"Every weakness is a strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use."

The journey of character like Covenant, Linden, Teresa, Geraden, Angus, Morn -- name any who succeed in the end -- can be described as finding out how to apply one's own strengths in the right way. Even Leprosy, in the end, turned out to be a strength for Covenant, once he finally learned how to see it that way.

Knowing yourself is one thing. The next step is knowing how to apply what you have to the problems you face. Esteme for ones own self comes from learning how to face challenges with the tools you have at hand.

[iQuestor]

After all, what keeps people from knowing themselves? How can you NOT know yourself? Isn't this "ignorance" based in an aversion which at its root is inauthenticity, i.e., not being true?

Thanks for your post, Malik23!

This is my opinion:

You can very easily not know yourself; however the problem is knowing that you do not know yourself: Who You Are; what are your core beliefs and motivations in life, with regard to self, family and society.

Most of us regard our selves as an idealized version of how/who we want to be, rather than who we actually are.

Yes, it can ignorance, but most often it is some kind of denial. I think TC was in denial when he first arrived in the Land. He was in the victim mode after his fall from being a best-selling writer to losing everything. He focused so much on the Fact of Leprosy that he was little better than the walking dead, contributing nothing to society, turning inward, as he was taught that he must in order to survive, or so he told himself.

However, his frequent attempts to be a part of society (paying his bills, going to the revival, going to the bar) all were failed attempts that only served to reaffirm that he was an outcast. So that is what he felt he was himself: Leper! Outcast. Unclean!

When he gets to the Land, he rejects everything there, because it goes against the Fact of Leprosy, and secondly, because he feels he doesn't deserve anything that is as pure and fresh as the Land. Accepting the Land would erase his fundamental belief of Self. So he decides that he is in a dream, and it just doesn't matter, and he allows himself to give in to his baser self with Lena.

After that point (when triock tries to kill him), he slowly recognizes that his actions in the Land will have moral as well as physical consequences, whether it is real to him or not. It takes him a long time to fully comprehend this. I think he relates to the Old Beggar's fundamental question at this point, and begin slowly making decisions; first, to garner no more debt to anyone for help or aid, then finally, to try ro restore and repay the gifts of the Land and its people by accepting responsibility for it, and letting people also help him, which was as important to him finding his sense of self.

At the end of TPTP, he has regained his sense of self by his time and experiences in the Land, and is only then truly able to become once again a part of society in real life, despite his Leprosy.

I think that TC has to know that Leprosy , physical, emotional or Moral, was not the fact of his existance.

I see your point now, after writing this, that it can be effectively argued that if you do not know yourself, then it still boils down to not being true, but I think it is a fine line, and knowing yourself is still a necessary step toward being true to yourself.

Can we agee, then, that these are both valid statements?

thanks for reading this long winded post, and for the thought provoking ideas !

edited to add this idea, after reading WayFriends post: At the risk of sounding placating, these are all valid points. Can we agree then:

1. Know yourself
2. be true
3. take right action (as WayFriend says. I think.)

can anything happen without all three of these steps?