Symbolism in 1st Chronocles

[Plotinus]

It is possible to read the Covenant series simply as an interesting series of events. However, to do so is to miss much of the work.

Take, for instance, the ring. You could just see it as a source of power like magical rings in other fantasy novels, in which case it will seem completely arbitrary that it was a ring. You might even scold the author mildly, as is done at theland.antgear.com/criticisms.html , for not being more original and making it a necklace or something.

However, the Covenant series is full of symbolism and (mostly Existentialist) themes.

The ring isn't just some random ring Covenant happened to wear. It is his *wedding ring*, which he continues to wear even though he is divorced, for reasons not even fully clear to himself but which he knows has something to do with defiance--defiance of the determination of himself, by himself for his own survival and by society, as a leper.

The author does not add this history to the ring simply to fill up some more pages--it is central to the symbolism and themes (for there are more than one) of the ring.

Existenialism in general (if there is any uniting theme) is bound up with the experience of the absurdity of individual existence, which ultimately has no reason to exist and yet does.

The Existenialist Sartre seems to have especially influenced the author, and his concept of "bad faith" is a theme thoughout the story, beginning with the ring.

For Sartre, what is most disturbing, scary, etc., about being human is free will. We can choose to do anything at any moment, regardless of our past history or who we have "been" or "are". We seek to run away from this frightening freedom by *becoming* "something", by defining ourselves in some terms as a thing which will behave in predictable ways. We seek to escape our nothingness by trying to be something.

Even this freedom is paradoxical, however, because we also are what we have done--what we have done in the past we cannot change, we have to be this person who has done our past, but at the same time we have to choose how we are that past--i.e., whether we repudiate it, defend it, own it, etc.

Now, back to the ring. As a leper, Covenant is in the position for the most radical form of bad faith. "I am a leper" is something Covenant is told he is by society, by his doctors who show him what happens to lepers who start dreaming leperousy doesn't define their entire existence, and which he believes if he forgets wholly defines him for even one second will lead to his horrendous death.

Covenant accepts all this--"Leper! Outcast! Unclean!", he presents himself to others and to himself as this, and nothing but this.

Except--despite this belief, he retains his wedding ring, a link to his being something other than just a leper--even though he believes fully any such links are literally deadly to him, he retains it, a symbol of everthing he is trying to repudiate in order to survive *as a leper*.

And it is there very artifact--this symbol of some part of Covenant that refuses bad faith, refuses to be this thing, leper, this token of his freedom not to be what he is, that becomes the thing of power in the Land--a power Covenant dare not use for fear of death, the power to choose to be other than what his doctors told him he was and had to be to live--a leper.

The ring, then, is a symbol, at least in at one level, of Covenant's own freedom not to be what he is, and brings with it all the paradoxes contained in Sartre's notions of freedom and bad faith.

Nor is it accidental the ring is of "white gold". That gold is the color gold is the very reason the words for the color and the metal are the same. "White gold" is already gold not being gold, not being what it is, exhibiting freedom.

Nor is it accidental that "white gold is foreign to the Land". The characters in the Land for the most part are steeped in bad faith. Evil and good are easy to identify--the Despiser is evil and the Lords are good--and you're one or the other, and being that determines all your actions, at least until Morham. The Land is the place of the in-itself people, the people who are what they are, are things, and it fears the white gold, choice, because choice can be good or evil, could "save or damn" the Land. The Bloodguard are in such bad faith--so determined to *be* loyalty--that they even surpass mortality. And the Land is so scared of free will that makes a deal with Covenant (via the horses) to try to relieve him of the choice. Indeed, many of the characters in the Land epitomize different ways of bad faith, even Kevin himself, who convinces himself he has no choice but to perform the Desecration.

All this and more lies in the one symbol of Convenant's ring. To pretend its not there is to miss much of the story, which is primarily about an internal conflict within Covenant.

From much of the hostility to talk such as this, I have gathered many here are equating talk of "themes" and "symbols" in the Convenant series with, say, the attempts to see the Lord of the Rings as a simple allegory for WWII. Nothing like that is meant here, however. There is no question of events in the Land corresponding to events in actual history. There is, however, a recognition that the Covenant series has multiple levels on which it can be read, and on which it was clearly intended to be read, and that it is rife with symbolism.

As for a point the author is trying to make? He is exploring the human condition in a manner heavily influenced by Existentialism. He proposes an answer at the end, though it would certainly be wrong to say he wrote the series just to give that answer, that he himself is very confident with that answer, or that all the symbolism and conflict up to that point is resolved in that answer.

His answer to the absurdity of existence is, however, given in the way that Convenant defeats the Despiser, without becoming the Despiser himself (without accepting the new definition of hero rather than leper)--with laughter. The absurdity of existence is humorous, the same answer given to Existentialism in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and in appreciating that humor lies the avoidance of despair (contra Kierkagaard, who found the only avoidance of it in God, the ultimate Thing).

What I would like to have is a discussion about the various symbols and themes in the series, and what significance there is to the symbols, and on how many different levels.

For instance, I'd love to see someone discuss, what is the meaning or meanings in the fact that Lena's Covenant-Banner statue instinctively teaches Morham the Ritual of Desecration? Surely noone will claim there is no symbolism there? Is it refering to the Banner part of Covenant, his bad faith? Is it that some combination of Covenant and Banner leads to despair? Does Lena's having made it enter into why it can teach the Ritual, does it have something to do with her, or how she sees Covenant and Banner? Is there something going on in Morham's development not going on in the other Lords, that it teaches this to him, but not the other lords?

[Plotinus]

Of course, even on the ring itself, I've hardly exhausted the symbolism and meaning. That Covenant's last name is *covenant*, promise (first name Thomas, as in doubting Thomas, Doubting Promise?), that his ring is a symbol of the violated marriage convenant, etc., would flesh out more levels of symbolism and meaning.

[Avatar]

Welcome to the Watch Plotinus, welcome indeed. That was quite a first post.

I'll have to give it some thought really before I make a serious reply, because I've got strong feelings on the issue of symbolism in fiction, not least being their subjectivity, and the intent of the author in terms of any given "symbol."

Not that I dispute that symbolism can and does exist in books, or that the author sometimes deliberately inserts it, but I do tend to feel that the strictly analytical sometimes tend to read more symbolism into such things than was the intent.

--Avatar

[Buckarama]

The Covenant-Banner statue always meant to me that Lena expected Covenant's Service to be as pure as Bannors and the Huarchi. It was an idea Covenant felt he could not live up to.

[wayfriend]

Nicely done, Plotinus, you wascally founder of neoplatonism you.

Even this freedom is paradoxical, however, because we also are what we have done--what we have done in the past we cannot change, we have to be this person who has done our past, but at the same time we have to choose how we are that past--i.e., whether we repudiate it, defend it, own it, etc.

This a remarkable paraphrase of wyrd (weird/würd), which of course figures so prominently in the Second Chronicles. (See this thread.)

His answer to the absurdity of existence is, however, given in the way that Convenant defeats the Despiser, without becoming the Despiser himself (without accepting the new definition of hero rather than leper)--with laughter. The absurdity of existence is humorous, the same answer given to Existentialism in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and in appreciating that humor lies the avoidance of despair (contra Kierkagaard, who found the only avoidance of it in God, the ultimate Thing).

I don't think you'll find too many people who would agree with you here. (See this thread.) Donaldson takes the meaning of life most seriously indeed.

I'm afraid that you've misrecognized laughter as a sign of hilarity when it is meant to be a sign of joy - the un-despite.

[Buckarama]

I think you are all over analizing. The ring is simply a simble of TC's humanity, before he became a leper. That is what gives it power. His belief that he is still human, NOT a leper.

[danlo]

I agree with Buck

...by the way, it's
Bannor
Elena
and symbol

**this message brought to you by the 'Grammar Police' **

[Zarathustra]

Plotinus, I've been boring members of the Watch with my own existential interpretations of the Chronicles for over a year now. It's obvious to several of us (Xar comes to mind). I don't know why more members here don't dig into this rich source of interpretation, especially since Donaldson himself says that in writing the Chronicles, he was influenced by existentialism, French existentialism specifically--by which it would be a safe bet to assume Sartre was a big part. [If you haven't explored the Gradual Interview on Donaldson's website, you're missing a valuable resource. He drops lots of clues for those who are attentive.]

I'm more interested in Heidegger and Nietzsche than Sartre, so I haven't touched on the bad faith interpretation of the ring as you have. But I agree completely. That is one aspect of the ring. In purely narrative terms (ignoring the philosophy), the ring is obviously symbolic of his connection to his "lost" humanity, his previous connection to the human race in the form of love, life, marriage, children. Literally, that's what it IS. The fact that he still wears it is a sign that he hasn't given in to the despair of leprosy completely. That's the character-level symbolism of the ring, why it's important to TC personally. He's on the knife-edge, he can redeem himself.

But "lost humanity" can itself be analyzed in existential terms exactly as you have done: the freedom that none of us can ever lose, though we can deny it. We are all condemned to be free, though most of us deny this freedom--just as Covenant does. Thomas has allowed himself to become an object--"leper"--a death-avoidance machine. He suppresses his own freedom because he thinks it is too costly, too dangerous, too seductive. He renounces his freedom at the advice of his doctors and believes that leprosy is the new law of his life. And yet, he is still marching (mechanically) into town to pay his phone bill, to rebel against his "lost" humanity, his "lost" freedom to choose his own existence.

And freedom is a good analysis of the power the ring confers upon him in the Land, a paradoxical power. Each choice we make can either damn or save us, and the weight of such responsibility is too much for most people (which is why they trick themselves into denying it--bad faith). Covenant doesn't want that power, because he thinks lepers can't afford the luxury of choice. He doesn't know how to use it because he has suppressed it so completely. He can't let himself be human.

I have also stressed how the ring symbolizes his passions--which isn't strictly existential, but I think it is supported by the text and Donaldson's words in the Gradual Interview. SRD talks about the paradox of passion and control, of not withholding your passion, but at the same time not letting your passions destroy you and those you love (because passion can be either creative or destructive).

So there is more going on than a strict existential allegory. Donaldson wasn't trying to create a fantasy interpretation of Sartre. Rather, I believe, he recognized the truth conveyed by existential philosophers, and included those truths as the background principles upon which to build his story and world.

There are members here who resist such attempts at interpretation--or rather, they resist claims that such interpretations represent the author's intent. While I agree in general about the subjectivity of interpretation, I think, like you, think that certain interpretations are so obviously intended by the author that to not recognize them implies a fundamental misunderstanding of this text, rather than an attempt to remain skeptical about the author's intentions. But to say so sounds arrogant. Oh well, so I'm arrogant.

Welcome to the Watch! Check out these threads:
WGW, What actually happened?
The Fundamental Question of Ethics,
What is the Central Message . . . ,
Can someone explain TC's bargain to me?
Wild Magic
Philosophy and the Chronicles of TC

And there are many others I've forgotten about.

[Relayer]

Plotinus, great post! You might want to post part of it to the GI for SRD to reply to.

About the Covenant/Bannor sculpture... <searches memory> ... I thought that when TC saw the sculpture, he did recognize that it was of himself, but didn't want to acknowledge it. So he said something to the effect of "it's Bannor" to try once again to avoid responsibility.

If so, then what of Mhoram's subsequent understanding of the Ritual? In this case, Elena had not created a mixture of the Haruchai and TC in the sculpture. Since TC was essentially lying or avoiding, then the Lords' interpretation of "the sculpture of Covenant which the ur-Lord thought was Bannor" is misled. (TC was always "closed" to the healthsense of the Land's inhabitants, so they couldn't simply tell when he lied). But it could be that as a seer, Mhoram recognized Covenant's inauthenticity, at least intuitively, and maybe grasped some other truth... perhaps something along the lines of the effect of fear, of denying one's own power.

[Plotinus]

Malik,

Thanks, I'll check out Donaldson's website, I didn't know one existed. I just googled up Thomas Covenant last night because some things about the series still rattle around in my brain every once in a while (like the Covenant-Bannor statue), and found this place.

Also, I didn't mean that the series was one big existialist allegory, or even that we could just straight-forwardly say ring=x, statue=y, just that one of the levels of meaning and symbolism of the ring is elucidated by an existential analysis. Certainly there are other levels of meaning going on even with the ring itself, as with the entire text, which is part of what makes it so rich.

As for the author's intent, while it can be interesting to discuss that, and its clear to me at least he intended several of the layers of meaning and symbolism in the work, a good work can also take on a life of its own and have meanings the author, at least consciously, didn't intend, but whose elucidation nevertheless contributes to the richness of the work.

For people who prefer to read the work only on the surface, and ignore or deny the rich tapestry of themes and symbolism in it, all I can say is they are welcome to do so, but they are missing out on whole dimensions of the story.

[Avatar]

Don't get me wrong. I don't deny that symbolism exists in the story, nor that there are various levels to it. Indeed, the depth is one of the things I appreciate most about it.

And of course, we have SRD's own description of the relevance of the Wagnerian epic, Ring of the Nieblung to the Chrons in this instance, if not in the case of your general run-of-the-mill writing.

Once again though, I hesitate at the extent of the analysis. No doubt the ring is indeed intended to symbolise something. However, even casual consideration of the possibilities yields far more potential symbolism than is likely to be present, and hence my comments about the subjectivity of it.

I very much doubt that the author sits down and produces a list of the things that the ring symbolises. And then the list of things that the Krill symbolises. He may come to decide on, or realise, something it does/will symbolise, but I think that the assumption, (not that you necessarily make it) that he "plots" all the levels people may discern in the tale deliberately is a false one.

The ring itself in fact is an easy one, because rings are, by their very nature, symbolic items, whether they be sybmolic of love and...dare I say covenants, or similar "mundane" concepts.

However, don't you think that there is probably some sort of "upper limit" to the symbolism, whether implicit or explicit?

And of course sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

All that aside, good and interesting posts. And while I might disagree that SRD feels that the answer to lifes absurdity is hilarity, I generally do feel that waymyself.

--A

[Loredoctor]

As I understand, Donaldson wanted to discuss leprosy and unbelief. There are some here who are reading too deep into it for the sake of sounding clever Or, placing their own background (education) into what they read.

Here's what Donaldson said when I asked him about interpreting his works:

Here's what I think: there's less to this than meets the eye. Reading is an interactive process. Readers have always supplied their own interpretations of what they read. In my case, the issue is simple: I've never had a "message" I wanted to communicate (impose on the reader), so rejecting my message should be effortless. (I'm a storyteller, not a polemicist. As such, my only mission is to help my readers understand my characters and appreciate what those poor sods are going through.) In general, however, one might say that the task of any writer is to communicate his/her intentions so clearly that the reader will--as it were spontaneously--arrive at the appropriate interpretation. And if that task has been accomplished, what would be the point of rejecting the author's message?

[KAY1]

Some of the questions you have raised have actually been answered by SRD in his gradual interview. Especially his fondness for 'names with meaning'. He sometimes picks names simply because they 'sound right' and at other times he picks names specifically because of their meaning.

[Zarathustra]

Loremaster, I counter your quote with another quote!

Here's how it works. I decide to write a story for its own sake, because it moves or excites me in some way. Then, because I'm moved or excited, I try to bring all of my resources to bear on that story; to give it the best possible author. Now, it just so happens that my resources include an intensive background in fundamentalist Christianity, a fair acquaintance with French existentialism, and an instinct for conceptual thought. So what happens? My stories turn out to be full of organized theological implications. Go figure.

I think we can safely conclude that his stories also turn out ot be full of French existentialism, since this is one of the "resources" he brings to bear. And since Sartre is the most famous french existentialist, and bad faith is perhaps his most famous concept, then Plotinus' interpretation is no stretch at all. In fact, I think that given the above quote and the synchronicity between the ring and the concept of bad faith, it would be an act of literary negligence to dismiss Plotinus' idea as mere:

. . . reading too deep into it for the sake of sounding clever Smile Or, placing their own background (education) into what they read.

Perhaps the problem here is an unfamiliarity with the concepts of existentialism. Google bad faith. And then come back and think about the ring. I think it's a brilliant, fitting interpretation. After all, it is CLEAR that SRD has made freewill an important aspect in the book--he has the characters themselves worry about it. Covenant worries if he is truly free in the 2nd Chronicles because he gave himself up as a sacrifice for Joan. As Sartre might say, he made himself an object, a "something." He became "a sacrifice." He used his freedom to give up his freedom. Why else would he worry about being free? Can anyone else make sense out of Covenant's worry in the 2nd Chrons? Why would the circumstances leading up to his transportation to the Land in any way affect his freewill? I think Sartre can help us with this.

[Zarathustra]

Here's another quote from SRD on the GI, in response to a question I asked him. I challenged his claim that he was not a polemicist. Here's part of what he said:

So you could--if you were so inclined--say that my stance as a story-teller is one of "existential humanism." But that is not at all the same thing as saying that my stories are *about* existential humanism. My stories are not *about* anything except my characters and their emotions; their dilemmas and their responses to those dilemmas.

The observations that we can make about a particular story, or about stories in general, after we have experienced them have the potential to be very educational: they can continue the process of expansion. But they also have the potential to be very misleading because they can confuse the observation with the experience.

Apparently I've made that mistake more often than I realized.

And, since I'm not one to shy away from disconfirming evidence, I'll end with this nugget:

Sartre's brand of existentialism isn't to my taste. After all, wasn't it Sartre who asserted that "Man is a futile passion"? A man who writes the kind of fiction I do can hardly be expected to accept that statement.

[danlo]

Sarte is the most famous French exitentialist? I always thought Camus was...

Absolute justice is achieved by the suppression of all contradiction: therefore it destroys freedom.

...well, that explains the Chrons in a nutshell for me!

[Loredoctor]

Loremaster, I counter your quote with another quote!

Here's how it works. I decide to write a story for its own sake, because it moves or excites me in some way. Then, because I'm moved or excited, I try to bring all of my resources to bear on that story; to give it the best possible author. Now, it just so happens that my resources include an intensive background in fundamentalist Christianity, a fair acquaintance with French existentialism, and an instinct for conceptual thought. So what happens? My stories turn out to be full of organized theological implications. Go figure.

I think we can safely conclude that his stories also turn out ot be full of French existentialism, since this is one of the "resources" he brings to bear. And since Sartre is the most famous french existentialist, and bad faith is perhaps his most famous concept, then Plotinus' interpretation is no stretch at all. In fact, I think that given the above quote and the synchronicity between the ring and the concept of bad faith, it would be an act of literary negligence to dismiss Plotinus' idea as mere:

. . . reading too deep into it for the sake of sounding clever Smile Or, placing their own background (education) into what they read.

Perhaps the problem here is an unfamiliarity with the concepts of existentialism. Google bad faith. And then come back and think about the ring. I think it's a brilliant, fitting interpretation. After all, it is CLEAR that SRD has made freewill an important aspect in the book--he has the characters themselves worry about it. Covenant worries if he is truly free in the 2nd Chronicles because he gave himself up as a sacrifice for Joan. As Sartre might say, he made himself an object, a "something." He became "a sacrifice." He used his freedom to give up his freedom. Why else would he worry about being free? Can anyone else make sense out of Covenant's worry in the 2nd Chrons? Why would the circumstances leading up to his transportation to the Land in any way affect his freewill? I think Sartre can help us with this.

Thanks, Malik23. I don't deny that he uses existentialism in his work, but my main point is that it's not the purpose of his work.

[Zarathustra]

Thanks, Malik23. I don't deny that he uses existentialism in his work, but my main point is that it's not the purpose of his work.

Looking at his own explanations, I'm forced to agree. He says that his "stance as a story teller" is one of existential humanism. But his stories aren't ABOUT existential humanism. However, this is still hard for me to accept, since the problems the characters deal with are all examples of existential crisis, and the solutions they come up with are existential solutions. I still think SRD is not being completely honest with himself in this respect. Maybe it wasn't his intention to write about existentialism--but he did it anyway.

I was thinking about the quote I provided where he is critical of Sartre. Perhaps this isn't disconfirming evidence as I first thought. Just because he doesn't like or agree with Sartre doesn't mean that he wouldn't include some of his ideas in his writing--if for no other reason than to set up the distinction between man being a "futile passion" and his own position of man being an effective passion.

[Plotinus]

Let me try to clarify my position again, as some seem to be misinterpreting it.

I am *not* saying the author wrote the Covenant series "about" existentialism--he wrote it about a story, and the characters in that story.

Nor am I saying he wrote it express some specific "moral", like the old morality plays.

Nor am I saying the author had some list of symbols he wanted to use, mentally or otherwise, which directly correspond to things he wanted to symbolize.

I don't think, for instance, that the author had in mind, "Hey, I'll write a book, and have a ring symbolize Sartrian bad faith."

So, what am I saying?

I'm saying first, that the author is clearly influenced by existentialism, and especially by Sartre and to a lesser extent Kierkagaard.

Existentialism differs fundamentally from other philosophy in that it focuses primarily on the universal human condition, rather than the (external or objective) world. Much of it is devoted to exploring what might otherwise be considered psychological and literary themes.

For instance, when Sartre takes up free will, he is not concerned with whether humans have metaphysical free will or not, i.e., with the free will vs determinism debate. He is concerned with describing the experience of free will and the various reactions humans have to that experience--fear, flight, "bad faith", etc.

What arises from a familiarity with existentialism is not a monolithic theory of the universe, but rather a sensitivity to a certain problematic--the problem of being human.

I say the Covenant series deals with the issue of free will with a clear Sartrian influence, by which I mean not that that is all it deals with, nor that the author agrees with Sartre, nor that that is all the series deals with, nor that author wrote the series to deal with it, etc.

What I mean is, the experience of free will and the reactions to it are a major theme of the series--it is something the characters themselves fret about, it is something we hear much about their reactions to and growth in regards to, it has a part in important symbols such as the Ring and the Vow of the Bloodguard, etc. And having encountered Sartre, Sartre's problematic of free will informs the author's understanding of free will, is part of his understanding of free will, though it is not the only influence, and the author has clearly done a good deal of his own thinking on the subject.

Perhaps part of the problem here is the word "theme". By "theme" I don't mean something like the moral of a fairy tell, I mean something that enters into the story and its characters, something that provides part of the problematic for and advancement of the story and its characters, something the work explores--not necessarily something that is the *only* theme, or something to which the author necessarily has an answer--just something he *explores* in the work.

[Plotinus]

Ok, for another example, take what is also a recurring theme in the series, the idea of a Covenant, or Vow, or Oath.

This is explicitly a recurring theme in the work, from the name Covenant itself, to the Vow of the Bloodgaard, to the Oath of the Lords, to the ring itself as explicitly a symbol of a broken marriage vow.

Here, also, a Sartrian *awareness* is evident in the author as his characters and his story confront these promises.

The Sartrian problematic with a covenant or promise or oath is that it is never binding, in the sense that the person undertaking it tries to relinquish his free will with the oath, but can never do so--he must reaffirm the oath with a new free decision in each subsequent moment, and is free to choose not to do so--the oath, no matter how heartfelt and meant at the time it is taken, cannot itself constrain our future freedom.

An oath is already a sort of "bad faith" for Sartre, an attempt to escape one's freedom.

In this sense, though Covenant never takes a "lepers oath" to be completely a leper, his determination to be a leper is, on a Sartrian analysis, basically the same thing as an oath.

In this sense, then, Covenant's determination to be a leper is one with Bannor's determination to be his Vow, and the Lord's determination to be their Oath of Peace. The Lord's bad faith leads to the failure to understand the Lore; the Bloodguard's, to the Corruption; and Covenant's, to the rape of Lena, etc. In each case the characters are trying to do the impossible--give up their free will to a covenant. The Bloodguard come so close to being their vow that they temporarily cease to be human, mortal.

Why does the Covenant-Bannor statue made by Elena teach Mhoram the ritual of descretation? One of the reasons is that Covenant and Bannor, and even Elena herself, share this bad faith, this renuncian of freedom, which is also a renunciation of personal responsibility, and hence something that could allow one to commit a Desecration. Kevin, in committing the original Desecration, does so by denying he has a choice, by believing circumstances force him to do so, by renouncing his personal responsibility, by his very commitment to love of the Land. (Though this is of course not all that is at work in Kevin's Desecration--it is *one* of the themes in it.)

Now, is bad faith all that the author explores in the concept of a covenant, an oath, or a vow? Of course not. He brings to bear all his thoughts, experiences, and questions about covenants, one of which is of course his Christian experience of the idea of Christ as a new convenant, and the difference between the old absolute covenant of the Law of Moses, which bound men to an unforgiving legal framework of how to be, and the new covenant of forgiveness, which recognized men were incapable (and shouldn't be capable, couldn't be capable if they have free will) of meeting an absolute standard (such as the Vow).

Other themes include utilitarian ethics versus an ethics of personal responsibility (Kevin's desecration might be justifiable on a utilitarian analysis), and what can utilitarianism say when all choices are (at least believed to be) doomed to failure?

Nor are these themes altogether seperate--the old and new covenants of Christianity of course also involve the problem of free will, as obviously any ethics does as well, etc.

The point is this--these are thoughts, concerns, questions, swirling around in the authors mind as he writes the books, and they swirl though the story he writes as thoughts, concerns, and questions of the characters in the story and as the situations they find themselves in. They emerge as part of the story, and exist in it.

And rather than the story being intended to express some message from the author on these issues, the story itself is in part the author thinking through these and other issues via the story, it is part of his own working through the issues rather than a presentation of a solution he already has.