So I was right that Vain is a violation of Law (pat-pat), but I was wrong to try and think about this logically because it is fantasy magic, and such questions necessarily lead to circular answers.Nathan Eddy: Mr. Donaldson,
I’m confused about lore vs. Law as it applies to Demondim-spawn (Waynhim and ur-viles). On page 413 of Runes, you wrote, “For that reason," [Esmer] explained, "the Staff of Law is inimical to them. Though Waynhim serve the Land, and have always done so, their service stands outside the bounds of Law. Their lore is in itself a violation of Law. The fact of their service does not alter their nature.”
If the lore of Waynhim is a violation of Law, then the ur-viles shouldn't be an exception, even when they are working to serve Law, as the Waynhim do. So the lore which they used to create Vain should be a violation of Law, too. I'm still a little confused how the addition of Findail and wild magic can transform a *violation* of Law into the *Staff* of Law.
If “the fact of their service does not alter their nature,” then what altered the nature of the ur-vile’s lore?
Gee, I've always assumed that Vain was indeed a violation of Law. But asking me how he could be transformed into something completely different is rather like asking me how magic "works". In books like mine, that kind of question leads in circles.
But consider that chemistry is rife with similar transformations. The human body can hardly survive without chemicals which are inherently toxic (homocysteine leaps to mind)--until interactions with other chemicals transform them into beneficial substances.
Or consider the profound artificiality of written storytelling: an artificiality so extreme that it can be (and in fact has been) considered a violation of Law. Yet somehow arbitrary black squiggles on paper are transformed by the reader's intelligence and imagination into something as organic as thought itself.
And if that isn't enough, remember that the One Tree (and/or the Worm of the World's End) played a part in Vain's transformation.
The ur-viles and Waynhim certainly exist as violations of Law; but that doesn't render them incapable of understanding and serving Law--as the Waynhim have demonstrated since the beginning of "The Chronicles".
(05/22/2007)
Ok, I'd be fine with that if he didn't then go on to try and answer it with an analogy to chemistry (science, not magic).
The analogy to reading I don't get at all--unless he's trying to say, "this is a work of fiction, get over it." I don't see anything artificial about written story telling. That's like saying symbolic language and meaning itself is a violation of Law. Or that consciousness is a violation of Law. Conscious thought itself is dependent upon symbolic meaning. Is conscious thought artificial? I don't get the connection.
The thing about the One Tree is the most satisfying explanation here. (But then it contradicts his assertion that he can't explain the magic.) This reasoning seems like a "logical" explanation to me--at least within the framework of the story.
The last paragraph is just a restatement of the points I made in my question. Yes, I understand that Demondim spawn can serve Law and yet stand outside it. What I didn't understand was how Vain--which Donaldson admits was a violation of Law--can turn into the very tool and articulation of Law. The embodiment of Law. Surely this transformation is orders of magnitude greater than a mere "serving" Law.
At the very least, Donaldson has just admitted that the distance between "artificial" and "Law" isn't as distant as the divide seems to imply. It can be traversed on the most important, basic level of his symbology. Now I just need to work out the implications of this admission.
So since this is wrong, we can't take it as a given. We can move forward with a new given. What does that mean about Linden's percipience? What does it imply about the Staff? What does it imply about healing the Sunbane?Wayfriend wrote: If Vain had been, in himself, a violation of Law, Linden would have seen it, of that I am sure. So IMO we should take it as a given that he wasn't, and work backwards from there.