Rocksister wrote:What would he refer to himself as? Does he call his own self Foul or the Despiser? I can't recall. If there is any retro stuff in Revenant and beyond, perhaps these things will be revealed. I'd love to see more on the times of the first Lords. Too many questions remain unanswered.
I can see Kevin's introduction of Foul to the Council...
"Ah, members of the council, here is my good and trusted friend, Foul the Despiser... I bring him before you so that we may name him a Lord and entrust upon him all our secrets. No no, he's really a nice guy, don't let the name and the carious eyes fool you!" *voice lowers to a whisper* "he's got a nasty eye disease, that's why when you look at his eyes they feel like fangs... no, it's true, he told me himself!"
This also brings up the question, "What does the Creator call himself?" The legends of the Land call him the Creator, but that's it AFAIK.
"History is a myth men have agreed upon." - Napoleon
I had not forgotten Foul's speech to TC, but couldn't recall him ever claiming any of those names as the one he used for his own self. I guess he's just the embodiment of negativity and destruction, the opposite of creation and health. Yin and yang, you know. Creation and destruction must co-exist. One depends on the other. I'm being too weird. Must stop.......
Heard my ears aright? Did not the gaddhi grant me this glaive?
One must have strength to judge the weakness of others. I am not so mighty. Lord Mhoram in TIW
but was he lord foul when he was on the council, kevin would have probably have been suspicious of a dude named Foul.
"Old Gregg, legendary fish. Some say he's half man, half fish. Others say it's more of a seventy- thirty split. Whatever the percentage, he's one fishy bastard."
I think neither Lord Foul nor the Creator actually have names. Lord Foul mentions that all his names were given to him by the various people of the Land; my idea is that, as immortal principles of the universe where the Land resides, neither of them actually needed a name, especially if they were the only two entities of such nature in the universe. I assume that names and titles were given to them when they became known to the people of the Land...
Xar wrote:I think neither Lord Foul nor the Creator actually have names. Lord Foul mentions that all his names were given to him by the various people of the Land; my idea is that, as immortal principles of the universe where the Land resides, neither of them actually needed a name, especially if they were the only two entities of such nature in the universe. I assume that names and titles were given to them when they became known to the people of the Land...
I agree with your thoughts on this one, it is conceivable that the Despiser has no name. Jog my memory on this one, does the Creator ever call himself " The Creator" to Covenant? Cant seem to remember. If it is the case then maybe the Despisers name is "The Destroyer"!
As a name given by the people of the land I still think "Foul" is pretty poor, but like some others on here I am intrigued to hear what his name was on the council, perhaps it was Lord Fowl, and he was known for his love of chicken.
JUst one question: why is Foul's name so short in Giantish tongue? If he truly was a potent power, then maybe "Satansheart Soulcrusher" does not suffice...
And I swear
I'll never do it again
Unless you kinda liked it...
Xar wrote:I think neither Lord Foul nor the Creator actually have names. Lord Foul mentions that all his names were given to him by the various people of the Land; my idea is that, as immortal principles of the universe where the Land resides, neither of them actually needed a name, especially if they were the only two entities of such nature in the universe. I assume that names and titles were given to them when they became known to the people of the Land...
I agree with your thoughts on this one, it is conceivable that the Despiser has no name. Jog my memory on this one, does the Creator ever call himself " The Creator" to Covenant? Cant seem to remember. If it is the case then maybe the Despisers name is "The Destroyer"!
I don't think the Creator ever referred to himself with any name or title... which reinforces my belief that neither of them had names before. In that case, the Creator received his title by the people of the Land, and so did Foul, who probably embraced all the names he was given, judging by how he boasts about them.
As for why the Giantish name is so short, I assume it's probably because the Giants don't particularly relish talking about him, so giving him a longer name would defeat the purpose. Or, because he is a primal force, they do not think he needs a longer name.
Xar has hit fairly square on the nose. SRD never did give a name to either. The name Lord Foul came about after the betrayal of the council. Also there wasn't any reference to a name when Foul was with/on the council.
The people of the Land used names they could assoiciate with to describe the being who they loathed and feared.
Each group of peoples used their own frame of reference to describe Foul.
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
Rocksister wrote:"Ah, members of the council, here is my good and trusted friend, Foul the Despiser... I bring him before you so that we may name him a Lord and entrust upon him all our secrets. No no, he's really a nice guy, don't let the name and the carious eyes fool you!" *voice lowers to a whisper* "he's got a nasty eye disease, that's why when you look at his eyes they feel like fangs... no, it's true, he told me himself!"
Of course! Foul wants to make everyone lepers (or, you know, hopeless, ruined, etc) because he has an eye disease!
All we need is for linden to go get some good optometrist and everything'll work out.
I've always liked the name Lord Foul. From a writer's perspective, it adds weight to Covenant's original Unbelief - if he had been called something arcane and 'otherworldly' it would seem less likely that he had been drawn from Covenant's unconscious mind. SRD seems to have originally put in a fairly equal mix of exotic and standard names, so as not to give too much weight to either side of the Unbelief argument. Make all the names like Kevin, Lena, Satansheart (even Elena) and you're saying that yes of course this is an imagined world - make them all like Melenkurion Skyweir and then the idea that Covenant imagined the names seems a little unrealistic.
And as an admirer of words 'Foul' seems perfect to me - one syllable that perfectly describes his nature and has immediate impact - and if that's not enough to describe him we know that he is also 'The Despiser'. Doesn't leave much room for doubt there.
A Gunslinger wrote:I was just bein' snarky. Foul is sort of well..descriptive to a fault, I suppose. I think that "Foul" is actually a nickname, but it is used by TC almost exclusively.
I like the Giants name for him...Was is "Flesh harrower?"
No Flesh Harrower was a Raver the giantish name is Satansheart Soulcrusher
I have learned a lot in the Modern Art of words.
Poetry is the Art of words, random is the modern art.
Lord Foul wasn't a bad choice on the whole...He could have indeed named him Betty. Foul I think conveys what this character is capable of...and I think in the later novels we shall see even more of what Foul is capable of and just how the name was earned.....
There is one Law
that the Wild Magic
can Destroy or Maintain
for good or ill
BE TRUE!!!
I agree with what has been said about Foul. . . but what I remember thinking was kinda hokey when I read it the first time (I was 12) was Drool Rockworm. Umhhmm . . But again, perhaps clever names are not necesary in order to make the characters come to life.
As far as my own writing is concerned, I always try to get the names perfect. Then again, I haven't completed a story in ages. Maybe I should think about names less. . . though I seem to want to hang an entire character on a name.
I thought Drool Rockworm was a cool name. Wonderfully descriptive and fitting for the character.
I'm at the opposite end from those who think the names in the Chronicles are lame. I was quite charmed by them the first time around, and I still am -- and that most certainly includes Lord Foul's. Besides the quality of his storytelling, it was SRD's inventive names that made the Chronicles so memorable for me. I'm just not anguished over this issue as some readers are.
Relayer wrote:I thought I read in the GI that SRD said his intention was to depict a being that was completely evil and wanted to be clear about it right from the start... ie. a name like "Sauron" doesn't itself convey evil or malice. But he also said that he was young and idealistic and if he had it to do over again he'd have picked another name.
I believe SRD said he would've been more subtle about the name. But it saddens me a little that SRD appears to be second-guessing himself over Lord Foul's name. Come on, Mr. D., it's a great name. It's perfect. No need to be apologetic about it.
Relayer wrote:
I thought I read in the GI that SRD said his intention was to depict a being that was completely evil and wanted to be clear about it right from the start... ie. a name like "Sauron" doesn't itself convey evil or malice. But he also said that he was young and idealistic and if he had it to do over again he'd have picked another name.
Exactly. I was going to do a search of the GI to bring up this exact point, but you've beaten me to it.
I agree that all of Lord Foul's known names were given to him by various inhabitants of the Land and he may not have a personal name at all.
Tolkien Trivia Time:
The name Sauron is Elvish (having been invented by Elves) and is derived from the adjective "saura" plus the masculine suffix "-on". Saura means in English (drumroll...) "foul, putrid"(!!!). The entire name Sauron has been translated as "the Abhorred", although something like "Mr. Foul" might have been almost as accurate. It's strange how close SRD got to Tolkien completely without meaning it.
My Elvish is not even anything resembling passable, but I suppose that "Lord Foul" in Quenya would probably be something like "Sauratar" or "Tar-Sauron". (An expert opinion could be handy here.)
In contrast to Lord Foul, however, Sauron didn't like the name the Elves had given him and preferred more flattering ones, although for natural reasons his wishes get little heed in the books. He wanted to be called "the Lord of the Earth" in the time of The Lord of the Rings. He was "the Necromancer" while gathering power undercover in the sidelines of The Hobbit, and when he was deceiving the Elves to forge the Rings of Power he called himself Annatar ("lord of gifts") and Aulendil ("one who loves Aulë").
Foul I think conveys what this character is capable of...and I think in the later novels we shall see even more of what Foul is capable of and just how the name was earned.....
But again, perhaps clever names are not necesary in order to make the characters come to life. 
