The Gradual Interview

[wayfriend]

I don't think that Donaldson is saying the Ravers literally did lie. He's just saying don't base you're knowledge of the Words of Power on what they say.

[Zarathustra]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I have a strange question about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it pertains to the logic of the Last Chronicles. Earlier in the GI, you have said: ". . . I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down). . ." Well, the *truth* about the 2nd Law is that it implies an "arrow of time," a specific direction in which time flows. For this reason, we usually see things like cups falling to the floor and breaking, rather than shattered cups rising from the floor and spontaneously assembling themselves. The only time we'd witness such a reversal of entropy would be if we were watching a movie played in reverse.

So my question is this: if the Arch of Time is eventually broken, then won't the *arrow* of time also be broken? If the linear sequence of events no longer needs to flow in one direction, won't entropy be undone?

You have also said: ". . . it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process [of entropy] as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can."

So is the breaking of the Arch in itself an unexpected path to redemption? Achieving or fulfilling the "entire purpose of life?"

I like to think that this twisted logic might actually hold the key to the final "twist" at the end of this series--the way in which the Land is destroyed, and yet Lord Foul is defeated. Do I win? Did I guess the ending?

I accept your interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (I'm no physicist, but it sounds right.) And I accept your conclusion that breaking the Arch of Time would break "the *arrow* of time," thus making entropy meaningless. But I don't think that any of us would like the results. As far as I can see, if entropy were rendered moot (by eliminating "the *arrow* of time"), the outcome would be...nothingness. Not freedom, not "redemption," not any concept that has human significance: just non-existence. Because if "the *arrow* of time" isn't pointing "forward," it isn't pointing anywhere, and nothing can ever happen. Ever again.

As a matter of principle, I like "twisted logic." But in this case: sorry, no bonus points for you. <grin>

(09/14/2006)

Damn, my theory didn't pan out. And I was so wanting bonus points.

[wayfriend]

That's consistent with everything I know of Donaldson. He said very recently, "Life is a process... The past made us who we are." Time travel tricks that have the result of making what was achieved, and what was paid, moot, just aren't going to be up his sleeve.

[Zarathustra]

Well, I wasn't trying to imply that "time travel tricks" are the key to redemption. I was hoping that he was saying something profound about the apparently arbitrary nature of the arrow of time, and how tragic that arbitrary direction was. Most physics equations work equally well in both directions--in other words, there's no arrow of time for most of physics. Nothing distinguishes the arrow except for those aspects of physics which directly contribute to human suffering. And, I suppose this is still a major theme--I was just hoping for a way out of that whole "Death of the Land" thing, a way to turn despair into hope, not really a way to cheat your own past.

[Fist and Faith]

That whole entropy thing's always annoyed me. Everybody always says higher order is, say, a cup, and higher disorder is the cup broken in pieces on the floor. But I think the highest level of order would be if every ultimate-particle (whatever the most basic particle of matter/energy is) was perfectly evenly distributed throughout the universe? We need to break cups, people! Break them, then grind the pieces to dust, then throw the dust into the wind! Come on, folks, we're burning daylight! Let's get this universe in order!!

[Tulizar]

Thankfully it sounds like SRD will not use time travel as a cheap device to set things right, or save the Land. It'd be a major disappointment if Linden goes back in time on numerous occasions to change the course of history. Blech!

I don't have a problem with time travel in novels as long as it is logically explained. Hopefully things will be kept simple--Go from point A to point B without altering the future.

We need to break cups, people! Break them, then grind the pieces to dust, then throw the dust into the wind! Come on, folks, we're burning daylight! Let's get this universe in order!!

I'm breaking, I'm breeeaaakiiing!!

[Believer]

i think someone should tell Mr. Donaldson about the Chuck Norris jokes. I get the feeling the person asking that question was looking for a Chuck Norris rules the world type response

[dlbpharmd]

dlbpharmd: Would you please share with us your inspirations for the poem "My heart has rooms" from WGW?

Thanks, Don

I would if I had one. As far as I can recall, however, that song seemed to arise pretty naturally from Pitchwife himself (and from his circumstances, of course).

(09/20/2006)

This is about what I expected, but I had to ask.

[Seareach]

I can't remember where the thread was, but we were talking about the title of the third book. SRD in the gradual interview had mentioned "Should Pass Utterly" and we were all under the impression it was "Shall Pass Utterly". At the time I had said something like "I'm sure it's just a typo". Well, apparently I was wrong (ha! what a surprise! ). The third book is actually called "Should Pass Utterly".

[matrixman]

Really? The actual title is Should Pass Utterly? You're not kidding about this?

I had no idea.

Ugh. Call me a philistine, but I like it even less than Shall Pass Utterly. "Should" sounds so...pedestrian. And maybe I just have a prejudice against adverbs in titles. Could you imagine The Illearthly War? Whitely Gold Wielder?

For the record, I like the titles of the other Last Chrons books.

[Seareach]

No, not kidding.

SRD actually mentioned in the GI just recently the quote it comes from (which the word "should" is actually used):

The actual line (from "Lord Kevin's Lament" in TIW) is "did You intend/that beauty and truth should pass utterly from the/Earth?" And yes, that's where I got the title for Covenant 9.

Personally, I preferred "Shall" (but, hey, it's his book ) ...and the fact it has changed to "should" makes me think differently of what the third book might entail.

[Kil Tyme]

Note the question mark. Maybe it is more of a question title, as in the SRD quote, eg. "Should Pass Utterly?", but then about the only other title that is a question that I ever heard of is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. "Shall" is definite, whereas "Should" is more qualitatitive, open. I like the word Shall better, but Should does make for a more interesting title.

[Fist and Faith]

OK, I'm on that Should problem. Although I puissantly disagree with MM about the titles of the books, I do agree with Should being worse.

[Seareach]

OK, I'm on that Should problem.

Is there a "should problem"? The title of the third book is definitely "Should Pass Utterly".

[Usivius]

hehe I saw SRD answer the Chuck Norris question ... and drew, nice CBC plug...
heheheh

[kevinswatch]

Wait, wait, wait, when the heck did this happen? Was there any announcement? The book was listed on his site as "Shall Pass Utterly" for months. When did he switch it to "Should Pass Utterly"???

The insanity!

But yeah, it looks like it's right:

www.stephenrdonaldson.com/background/pu ... nant03.php

And yeah, I agree with everyone else. I like "Shall" better than "Should".

I guess I need to change this now on the Kevin's Watch's main page... Thanks a lot, SRD, for making me do more work! -jay

[Zarathustra]

That whole entropy thing's always annoyed me. Everybody always says higher order is, say, a cup, and higher disorder is the cup broken in pieces on the floor. But I think the highest level of order would be if every ultimate-particle (whatever the most basic particle of matter/energy is) was perfectly evenly distributed throughout the universe? We need to break cups, people! Break them, then grind the pieces to dust, then throw the dust into the wind! Come on, folks, we're burning daylight! Let's get this universe in order!!

We can continue this in the Loresraat, if you want. But briefly, what you're describing is called the "heat death" of the universe. When all particles are uniformly distributed, it's the same as all useful energy bleeding away in the form of heat. Heat loss during work is a measure of inefficiency of a process. In a universe of uniform distribution, absolutely nothing can be done. It is death.

Imagine it like this: useful energy--the kind that runs living beings--is like water at the top of a waterfall. It is potential-energy-turning-into-kinetic-energy. As the water falls, you can extract energy from it and do useful things like turning turbines and lighting homes. But once it is at the bottom, it's useless. The only way it becomes useful again is with an external input of energy from the sun, evaporating it, lifting it back to the sky, so that it can fall again and produce kinetic energy. Except at the "heat death," all the stars have run down, too. Nothing recharges the system. All the water has utterly fallen to its lowest level, and nothing will lift it back up again.

[I wonder if this is related to caesures being called, falls? ]

[Relayer]

[I wonder if this is related to caesures being called, falls? ]

You know, that's a really interesting point. I was just wondering why some people refer to them as falls, and this actually describes caesures pretty well... (leaving out references and further thoughts because we're not in the Runes forum). Who knew that people of the Land understood astrophysics?

[wayfriend]

When did he switch it to "Should Pass Utterly"???

Donaldson calls it

"Shall Pass Utterly" on 05/30/2004
"Shall Pass Utterly" on 11/19/2004
"Shall Pass Utterly" on 06/15/2005
"Should Pass Utterly" on 04/13/2006

Note that the Google Cache shows that the page Jay mentions on the official site had "Shall Pass Utterly" at an earlier time, but has "Should Pass Utterly" now.

Myriads of other websites have "Shall Pass Utterly", including wikipedia, amazon, and others. They have not yet picked up the change. None have "Should Pass Utterly" that I can find.

So it's clear: he changed the name.

Obviously, we have to get him to change it back.

PETITION!!!!

[wayfriend]

Apparently the GI queue is short, or he bumped this one to answer right away:

Ossie: This question may cause some discomfort, so I apologise in advance, but it surprised me so I thought I'd have a shot at asking. In a recent GI answer you were asked about the vulnerability/innocence of children as a theme in your writing, and you made the point that you would not consider Lena a "child" in the way that, say, Jeramiah is, because she was not was not "helplessly dependent". I would agree with that. But you then also said that "Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so". This is not an accusation, but a clarification: are you saying that Lena in some way "allowed" or "wanted" TC to attack her? Certainly, there was an element of hero-worship there both when TC first arrived in LFB & stll when he returned to the Land some 40 years later. But I always read that passage as Lena being 100% against the rape (obviously), despite any other feelings. Did you intend that some part of Lena wanted what happened? Or are you being more general in that she could have chosen not to go with TC, or run away at any point before the rape?

• You're right: this does make me squirm. <sigh>
  
  First, let me state categorically that I am NOT suggesting that Lena wanted to be raped. Or that any woman wants to be raped. Or that any human being ever asks for or deserves such violence. Covenant (if he were here) would be the first to tell you that his treatment of Lena was both unconscionable and indefensible.
  
  Still, I do believe that Lena made a choice. (After all, she could have just jumped in the river.) A passive and unconscious choice, certainly--but a choice nonetheless. And I believe that people are responsible for their choices, even when those choices are passive and unconscious. To say otherwise is to deny the humanity of the person in question. Sure, Lena did NOT choose to be raped--but she also did NOT choose to fight or flee (or even scream).
  
  (Sidebar. Research by psychologists confirms over and over again that people who choose to fight back--against any rape-like violation--suffer significantly less emotional trauma *afterward* than people who choose to submit, even when the people who fight back suffer more physical damage than those who submit.)
  
  Now. I *assure* you that I do not mean any of this as a criticism of Lena. Far from it. I feel nothing but empathy for her--and outrage at Covenant. But the way I see it, she allowed her near-adulation for Covenant, and her teenage desire to be important to him, to paralyse her, well, let's call them her survival instincts. And her choice is full of meaning. (At least it is for me.) First, it underscores the nature of Covenant's crime (and of his own unconscious impulse to side with the Despiser). Second, it is emblematic of the acceptance and tolerance with which the people of the Land treat Covenant--even when that acceptance and tolerance involve severe self-sacrifice. And third, it reveals--in the most intimate and personal way possible--what acceptance and tolerance can COST. Thus (I think) it shows the sheer *scale* of the risk that the Lords (and Atiaran) take when they choose trust and hope over retribution.
  
  I hope this answers your question.
  
  (09/21/2006)