Defend the Land!

[Avatar]

--A

[matrixman]

...isnt it ironic how much damage was done by the Lords, although unwittingly? Kevins Ritual of Desecration, Elena's summoning of Kevin; TC's bargain with the Ranyhyn; even the new direction Mhoram took eventually led to the Clave. None could see the results of their decisions. I am still in Awe of SRD's vision and message.

Or maybe SRD is just an intellectual sadist who likes to mess up his characters' lives for the thrill of it. I say that only half in jest. I mean, if I were a writer, I'm not sure I'd have the heart to put my characters through the kind of physical and emotional torture that SRD puts his through. But that's why he's a writer, while I'm just a reader who tries to absorb what his intense (and sometimes violent) imagination pours out.

Good point about all the unwitting damage the Lords have done to the Land in the name of its defense. No wonder Foul laughs. You start to ask who really messed up the Land more: the Ravers, or the Lords? Mere human beings, when invested with power, can inflict as much harm as any Raver or other agent of Corruption. How is an egomaniac who is deluded by his own sense of power and glory (Kevin) really any different from a Raver? The difference may be in intent, but the end result was that Kevin still ruined the Land more thoroughly than any Raver could have. So...Foul and the Ravers may be "evil," but misguided humans by themselves are almost as bad. Which brings up the matter of Linden as we enter the Last Chronicles.

Runes spoiler:

Spoiler

You have to wonder what unintended damage Linden has potentially done to the Land and to the Earth in her reckless and maybe misguided attempt to rescue her son from Foul. I can only hope Linden hasn't done anything really awful (well, because I'm cheering for her), but I just know SRD is going to make life even more miserable for her as the story continues. To those who say Linden is a complainer, well...look at the sadistic bastard who's writing the Chronicles. If I were a character in an SRD novel, I'd be a little miserable and anti-social, too!

[Buckarama]

The road to hell is paved woth good intentions.

[wayfriend]

Good point about all the unwitting damage the Lords have done to the Land in the name of its defense. No wonder Foul laughs. You start to ask who really messed up the Land more: the Ravers, or the Lords?

Foul works by manipulating people into destroying that which they love. Kevin, the other Lords, everyone. I can't blame the Lords when Foul's hand is so clearly present guiding their actions in one way or another. And certainly none of those things would have happened if Foul wasn't being archetypal evil all the time. No, the Lords are mortal, and fail only in not foreseeing all of the consequences of their actions, which only the immortal and timeless Foul could.

[exnihilo]

The Oath of Peace was a <b> Way of Life</b> for the people of the land. they couldn't conceive of guerilla training, or any real preparation for an offensive at all!

It's bigger than the Oath, IMO. The people of the Land lived a life of service, service to the Land, service to their fellow men, service to beauty. Turning Land society into a war society is as much of a corruption as anything Foul could do. Growing trees in the service of war is an abomination. Defacing the Land with walls would be tantamount to sin. Its a matter of not losing what you are preserving when you try to preserve it. Time and again, they have chosen to let Foul destroy something over transforming it themselves and becoming what they choose not to be. The Warmark was their only concession, created to protect lives, not to lead offensive strikes. If they died defending the Land, they would fail, and leave the defense to others ... but they would not be the ones to blight the Land or diminish the character of its people.

Wayfriend's post I think penetrates to the heart of the matter. We have all got to realize that the series was written by an individual with a particular point of view that is not necessarily universal. Although SRD vehemently resists the notion that his books are polemical, I think you would have to be absolutely naive to miss that the first series was conceptualized and written during and shortly after the long national nightmare of Vietnam.

In particular, SRD must have been affected by the deaths of 4 Kent State students at the hands of the national guard, and the virtually jubilant, perhaps even bloodthirsty, reaction of the townsfolk. I think we can surmise that the environment of that time was quite disturbing to the introverted and somewhat sheltered son of fundamentalist missionaries. One might even suggest that the event was in many ways shattering to SRD. In any event, it is certain that the expression of his view of human conceits through his art is not a very optimistic one, across a broad platform of fiction.

Consequently, we should not be surprised that SRD is not very impressed with any shade of militarism or materialism, either in terms of leadership or in terms of culture. In fact, the denizens of The Land seem to inhabit a society as idealized and as unreal as the world of Rousseu's noble savage, uncorrupted by a culture of destruction, living lives of freedom and authentic self-expression. The Unfettered, in particular, seem to occupy the highest pantheon of SRD's mortal aspirations: ascetic hermits devoted to stoic contemplation of the universal navel. Never is human relations put forward as a worthwhile endeavor, except to someone like Foul who uses it for the purposes of evil (through ravers usually).

Quite naturally, then, SRD's overarching view of things has intruded into the microcosm of how he imagines a military thinker might think. And though SRD is quite literate and educated on the subject, some assumptions he makes about military affairs are, I think, unwarranted. Primarily, he imagines that the perfect plan is the crown jewel of strategy. I think this is because the public was seriously misinformed by the political leadership during Vietnam -- military plans were repeatedly put forward as legitimate solutions to the fundamentally political problem of insurgency. Consequently, military men could not help but look foolish as whatever military steps were taken only served to worsen the political situation on the ground. So, it is not suprising that SRD thinks of generals as the worst kind of anachronism, men that think they have the power to force reality to their liking using military might. In actuality, and as several of you have alluded, military stratetgy rests upon the concept of flexibility. Flexibility presupposes that certain factors transcend man's ability to anticipate, and it is this flexibility that is sorely lacking in Troy's plan.

The art of war on land is an art of genius, of inspiration... A general never knows anything with certainty, never sees his enemy clearly and never knows positively where he is. When armies meet, the least accident of the terrain, the smallest wood, hides a portion of the army. The most experienced eye cannot state whether he sees the entire enemy army or only three quarters of it. It is by the eyes of the mind, by reasoning over the whole, by a species of inspiration that the general sees, knows and judges...

Napoleon Bonaparte Military Maxim 115

Guided by these words of Napoleon we can begin to see that a plan based upon perfect information is an impossibility. The art of the general is to position his men and material so as to capitalize upon any misstep of the enemy, while preserving both room to manuever and time to react flexibly on the defensive. Hile Troy failed to allow for the necessary amount of flexibility in a way that seems amatuerish to most any student of military history, most obviously by keeping his troops in the northwest corner of the map when they were going to be needed either in the central or southern areas.

It is the misfortune of those of us who are interested in military history to be a fan of an author who probably thinks the whole endeavor is foolish. Inevitably his works are going to reflect this sentiment, and no amount of what-if-ing is going to change anything. Whatever advantages we could wring from interior lines of communication, more robust reconnaisance, a defense in depth, strategic and tactical audacity, clever ruses, pincer movements, strategic barrages astride Flesharrower's supply line, Fabian or guerrilla strategies, technical innovations, rapid manuever concentration and dispersal, all of these would be offset by some other hobgoblin of SRD's imagining with the result that his point of view is affirmed. Sorry to rain on the parade.

[Avatar]

Good post MM, and excellent one ExNihilo.

You're not raining on the parade at all though. We know that the books aren't going to be rewritten to take any of this into account. And we know that there is a reason, (in terms of authorship) that things happen the way they do. So don't worry about it.

However, while we could disagree with the author about the polemics, I must point out that this implied pacificism may be contradicted by the very clear fact that "he" determines that the Oath of Peace is, if not invalid, at least insufficient.

--A

[matrixman]

Yes, an insightful post, exnihilo. Well said.

Regarding Napoleon: isn't it true, though, that he himself eventually fell victim to his own sense of invincibility, which clouded his judgment and led to his defeat? There is no doubt he was a military genius, but that didn't make him immune to overconfidence. At the end, he stumbled because he couldn't see past his own ego. Does that sound like a reasonable assertion?

Sense of invincibility...overconfidence...can't see past his own ego...yep, sounds like Hile Troy to me.

Okay, I swear I'll stop beating up poor Troy (in this thread, anyway). Even I'm getting tired of it. I did feel for the guy at the end of TIW, all right? It's difficult not to feel for anyone who gets turned into a tree stump. I wouldn't wish that on anybody, not even Hile Troy. Ironically, it is when he becomes Caer-Caveral that I revere him, as I've kept saying.

Wayfriend, you're right, of course. The things done to the Land by its people aren't done in a vacuum, they're done in response to the threat of Foul. Maybe I'm guilty of stating flaws that apply only to human beings in our "real" world, not the Land. Citizens of the Land would seem to be inherently more virtuous than we "real" folk could ever be, because the Land is supposed to be this primeval Eden, correct? I should've used the example of the Bhrathair instead: they are a materialistic, imperialistic culture closer to our own. The Bhrathair demonstrated that they could be quite petty and cruel on their own without any help from Foul or Ravers.

And sorry if I come off sounding like a jerk. I stand by my posts, but I know that sometimes I can't articulate my thoughts as well as other Watchers can. Anyway, I've made enough of a fool of myself in this thread for now. Carry on with the subject at hand here - namely, how to defend the Land (against Foul and incoherent Watchers).

[jwaneeta]

At long last we're weary of slagging off poor Hile Troy (who is a woobie).

Me? I would defend the land by sending out spies to ascertain what the Urviles fear, and then mount a campaign to undermine morale. I would infiltrate them with Wayhnim and destroy their efficency from the inside.

[iQuestor]

Sorry to rain on the parade.

what does this mean? Is it that you think the ideas expressed in your post have somehow invalidated the other opinions here? Or are you just apologizing for making a comment counter to the current line of thinking?

if it is the former, I guess I take issue with that; if it was the latter, then, hey -- everyone has an opinion, why not this one?

I read your post, and agree with most of what you say, however it is a point of view, and perhaps not the end all be all of the discussion. This topic has been around a long time, has covered a lot of ground, and I don't think we have heard the last word on it yet.

Yes, I agree SRD was not a military historian, and was caught up in a time and place that certainly did not support an optiimistic view of military strategy or tactics. I do think he intended Troy to be a tragic figure that showed that the philosophy of military thinking was/is flawed, despite perfect strategy.

I think initially SRD was trying to show that, despite a brilliant plan and complete dedication, an organized assault was not the solution to despite, and possibly almost never the best solution against this type of problem, because despite resides in us all, as TC finally realized.

However, after readers picked apart Troy's plan as we have done here, it comes to light that Troy may not have had such a great plan as SRD originally intended, depending on who you talk to. It is certainly a lively debate and one I enjoy. I do not think this discrepancy has hurt the intent or the story line, if anything it makes it richer.

I am not picking on you, exnihilo, but the comment just hit me wrong.

[Avatar]

Good posts, Iquestor and MM both. This is, as I've often said, one of my favourite threads on the Watch.

And bar a few fundamental mistakes, I still don't think that his plan was such a bad one.

--A

[exnihilo]

Yes, an insightful post, exnihilo. Well said.

Regarding Napoleon: isn't it true, though, that he himself eventually fell victim to his own sense of invincibility, which clouded his judgment and led to his defeat? There is no doubt he was a military genius, but that didn't make him immune to overconfidence. At the end, he stumbled because he couldn't see past his own ego. Does that sound like a reasonable assertion?

Sense of invincibility...overconfidence...can't see past his own ego...yep, sounds like Hile Troy to me.

Okay, I swear I'll stop beating up poor Troy (in this thread, anyway). Even I'm getting tired of it. I did feel for the guy at the end of TIW, all right? It's difficult not to feel for anyone who gets turned into a tree stump. I wouldn't wish that on anybody, not even Hile Troy. Ironically, it is when he becomes Caer-Caveral that I revere him, as I've kept saying.

Yes, Napoleon was a golden boy with feet of clay. I do not take issue with SRD's view of individual hubris and nemesis in the series (with Troy as its examplar). I suppose the issue I take with SRD is that I believe his tale also assumes the appearance of a morality play about what SRD thinks is the military mindset. And while it may be very possible to make that case as well, I believe he has given the other point of view short shrift by using Hile Troy as its apparent avatar.

[exnihilo]

Sorry to rain on the parade.

what does this mean? Is it that you think the ideas expressed in your post have somehow invalidated the other opinions here? Or are you just apologizing for making a comment counter to the current line of thinking?

if it is the former, I guess I take issue with that; if it was the latter, then, hey -- everyone has an opinion, why not this one?

I read your post, and agree with most of what you say, however it is a point of view, and perhaps not the end all be all of the discussion. This topic has been around a long time, has covered a lot of ground, and I don't think we have heard the last word on it yet.

Yes, I agree SRD was not a military historian, and was caught up in a time and place that certainly did not support an optiimistic view of military strategy or tactics. I do think he intended Troy to be a tragic figure that showed that the philosophy of military thinking was/is flawed, despite perfect strategy.

I think initially SRD was trying to show that, despite a brilliant plan and complete dedication, an organized assault was not the solution to despite, and possibly almost never the best solution against this type of problem, because despite resides in us all, as TC finally realized.

However, after readers picked apart Troy's plan as we have done here, it comes to light that Troy may not have had such a great plan as SRD originally intended, depending on who you talk to. It is certainly a lively debate and one I enjoy. I do not think this discrepancy has hurt the intent or the story line, if anything it makes it richer.

I am not picking on you, exnihilo, but the comment just hit me wrong.

iquestor,

Yes we are all obviously stating our opinions here. My opinion is that this discussion is about something other than what it seems to be about. What I really think it is about is SRD's take on military endeavors, pretty much as you state above. What I think we are all reacting to is SRD's failure to adequately represent "military thinking," and consequently I think that is what we should be discussing. In other words, discussing potential strategy and tactics of the Warward may be diverting but it is also masturbatory and irrelevant. This is what I meant by "raining on the parade."

I don't think SRD was attempting to engage in polemics in TIW. However, as he has admitted in the gradual interview, his point of view is obviously going to be represented in the text, and I think his point of view regarding the military mind is quite vehement. In any case, his editorial point of view is much more central the Hile Troy episode than normal, which makes the episode a distracting digression from the narrative as a whole TO ME. Was this a mistake? I will not judge it, but I will reiterate that I do not think that SRD considered the subject with objectivity in the text, unlike virtually every other major theme of the work (many of which he obviously has a point of view upon as well).

I wish that he had considered the subject of warfare more thoroughly, because I really would have liked to hear what he had to say about it. Perhaps he will in the final series.

[iQuestor]

thanks, exnihilo; I agree he was certainly biased, but thern again, he has no responsibilities otherwise in a work of fiction.

agreed, and I appreciate your response!

[jwaneeta]

exnihilo opined:

In other words, discussing potential strategy and tactics of the Warward may be diverting but it is also masturbatory and irrelevant.

I'm so slow on the uptake. I thought that was the whole point!

[exnihilo]

exnihilo opined:

In other words, discussing potential strategy and tactics of the Warward may be diverting but it is also masturbatory and irrelevant.

I'm so slow on the uptake. I thought that was the whole point!

Touche

[iQuestor]

exhilno said:

In other words, discussing potential strategy and tactics of the Warward may be diverting but it is also masturbatory and irrelevant.

However, the post that started this topic is:

Many of us lament and deride Hile Troy's appalling "plan" in The Illearth War - but can we do better? How would you have defended the Land? Can it even be done?

I understand your points earlier, however as you can see from the history of this post, its been around awhile; and a lot of us seem to actually like kicking around the topic, as masturbatorially irrelevant it may seem to you.

Not everything has to have a philosophical point to it in literature, and if it does, then it doesn't mean that we always have to discuss and experience it on that level.

[duchess of malfi]

exhilno said:

In other words, discussing potential strategy and tactics of the Warward may be diverting but it is also masturbatory and irrelevant.

However, the post that started this topic is:

Many of us lament and deride Hile Troy's appalling "plan" in The Illearth War - but can we do better? How would you have defended the Land? Can it even be done?

I understand your points earlier, however as you can see from the history of this post, its been around awhile; and a lot of us seem to actually like kicking around the topic, as masturbatorially irrelevant it may seem to you.

Not everything has to have a philosophical point to it in literature, and if it does, then it doesn't mean that we always have to discuss and experience it on that level.

Indeed. Sometimes it can be a lot of fun to just kick back and play "What IF????" games.

Not everything in the world needs be serious at all times.

[exnihilo]

exhilno said:

In other words, discussing potential strategy and tactics of the Warward may be diverting but it is also masturbatory and irrelevant.

However, the post that started this topic is:

Many of us lament and deride Hile Troy's appalling "plan" in The Illearth War - but can we do better? How would you have defended the Land? Can it even be done?

I understand your points earlier, however as you can see from the history of this post, its been around awhile; and a lot of us seem to actually like kicking around the topic, as masturbatorially irrelevant it may seem to you.

Not everything has to have a philosophical point to it in literature, and if it does, then it doesn't mean that we always have to discuss and experience it on that level.

iquestor, I apologize for being a fly in the ointment but it seems to be my nature. If everyone would like to kick this topic around for fun, by all means do not let me interfere, and I mean that sincerely.

Believe me, I have imagined many ways in which Troy's plan might be improved, and have done so since first reading the books a long time ago. In fact, a while back I sent SRD a question on the gradual interview that dealt with this very subject, since the Troy issue has always bothered me from day one. SRD did not choose to respond, and I understand his reasons for not doing so, because I basically called a major portion of the thematic structure of TIW into question. The gradual interview is not supposed to be a critique, and I understand that.

Gradually I have come to realize that all what-if scenarios like this thread are ignoring the guy behind the typewriter that is going to find a way to foil your plans, because that is his intention, and nothing is going to change his mind at this point. Although SRD would probably not write those first books the same way if he were starting them now, they are for all intents and purposes a dead issue.

I have attempted to explain the origin of the consternation this issue causes me, in the belief that perhaps it applies to others. I do not regret that attempt, because possibly some have been stimulated to a small degree by my opinion. But having made my point I have nothing further to add, unless someone would like to introduce a further inquiry or critique regarding my point of view. Please, enjoy the thread without further adieu.

[exnihilo]

exhilno said:

In other words, discussing potential strategy and tactics of the Warward may be diverting but it is also masturbatory and irrelevant.

However, the post that started this topic is:

Many of us lament and deride Hile Troy's appalling "plan" in The Illearth War - but can we do better? How would you have defended the Land? Can it even be done?

I understand your points earlier, however as you can see from the history of this post, its been around awhile; and a lot of us seem to actually like kicking around the topic, as masturbatorially irrelevant it may seem to you.

Not everything has to have a philosophical point to it in literature, and if it does, then it doesn't mean that we always have to discuss and experience it on that level.

Indeed. Sometimes it can be a lot of fun to just kick back and play "What IF????" games.

Not everything in the world needs be serious at all times.

A sage observation milady.

Your obedient servant,
exnihilo

[iQuestor]

exhilno wrote:

I do not regret that attempt, because possibly some have been stimulated to a small degree by my opinion.

nor should you. You are obviously well read and know both military history and TC very well. I liked reading your posts, but the points I brought up were, to me, inflammatory; but I try to be diplomatic and address them as I have here, with a question or request for clarification. This media does not truly express the intent or disposition of the writer, and miscommunications do occur, as they do over email.

I agree with many points you make, and also agree wholeheartedly with your remark about the man behind the typewriter and his point of view.

Please do not construe my comments to mean your opinion isn't valid , welcome, or anything negative, I was just responding to those points in your posts that *seemed* to imply anyone elses opinion here in this thread was thereby invalid or irrelevant.