just finished fatal revenant

[Variol Farseer]

You seem, like most moral relativists I've encountered, to misunderstand what is meant by moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is not the belief that every act is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It is the belief that moral values have an objective referent; that the moral quality of an act is discoverable in the act and its circumstances. It is not something that we are allowed to simply make up for ourselves.

The evil Linden has committed is to arrogate to herself the power to assign moral value to her own actions, irrespective of the real or probable consequences, and in total disregard of what anyone else thinks. If you can't see evil in that, then I'm afraid you can't see evil at all — and you shouldn't be trying to talk about things in terms of morality.

[Fist and Faith]

Moral absolutism is not the belief that every act is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It is the belief that moral values have an objective referent; that the moral quality of an act is discoverable in the act and its circumstances. It is not something that we are allowed to simply make up for ourselves.

What is the objective referent that moral absolutists look to?

[Zarathustra]

You seem, like most moral relativists I've encountered, to misunderstand what is meant by moral absolutism. Moral absolutism is not the belief that every act is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. It is the belief that moral values have an objective referent; that the moral quality of an act is discoverable in the act and its circumstances. It is not something that we are allowed to simply make up for ourselves.

The evil Linden has committed is to arrogate to herself the power to assign moral value to her own actions, irrespective of the real or probable consequences, and in total disregard of what anyone else thinks. If you can't see evil in that, then I'm afraid you can't see evil at all — and you shouldn't be trying to talk about things in terms of morality.

Hmm. . . I admit your version of moral absolutism sounds strange and unfamiliar to me. However, I'm not sure your version makes sense. How can a moral system be absolute when actions can be good or bad depending upon the circumstances? Circumstantial morality is relativism.

I do agree that absolute morality includes the idea that we can't make up "right" and "wrong" ourselves. So we agree at least on that part of the definition of "absolute morality." But though I agree with that definition, I don't agree with that conclusion--as you rightly note. However, this is completely separate from whether or not I correctly understand the term. In your post, you seem to be confusing these two separate issues--as if my inability to "see evil" stems from my misunderstanding of what "absolute morality" means. Conversely, you seem to imply that if I understood "absolute morality" correctly, then I'd be able to "see evil." But this begs the question of whether or not evil is something objective which can be seen by holding the correct view of it.

Perhaps that's not your point. But the way you word it makes it sound that way.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with assigning moral value to your actions yourself. In fact, I think this is much more meaningful than simply accepting someone else's assignment of moral value to your actions. What gives someone else the right to assign moral value to your actions if you yourself don't have that power?

More importantly, I believe this is what Donaldson is saying--whether you agree with the idea or not. What else do you think, "Joy is in the ears that hear" means? (or whatever that giant quote is) We define it ourselves. Everything Donaldson is writing is a critique against accepting the judgment of others. This is how Covenant starts out: defying the judgment of his town, rejecting their disapproval of him by going into town to pay his electric bill. Society tells him that he is "unclean," yet he learns to love himself by assigning moral value to his own actions, NOT by accepting society's norms. Donaldson has said explicitly in the GI that this story is about (in part) defining the meaning of your life yourself.

[wayfriend]

The evil Linden has committed is to arrogate to herself the power to assign moral value to her own actions, irrespective of the real or probable consequences, and in total disregard of what anyone else thinks.

Hey ... I do that every day. You do to. No one goes through life by preceding everything one does with asking someone else if it is good or bad. And it is certainly within the pervue of a "heroic" character to make world-changing choices based on their own instincts and opinions.

Once again, people holding Linden up to impossible standards that they don't measure any other character with.

In TPTP, TC just started walking to Foul's Creche, no plan, no ideas, just his gut telling him it was time for a showdown. Despite the fact that the whole universe was at stake, and there wasn't so much as a hint that he knew how to defeat Foul.

Now, there's a case, if there ever was one, of "arrogating to oneself the power to assign moral value to one's own actions, irrespective of the real or probable consequences, and in total disregard of what anyone else thinks". And yet, I never read one objection to this part of the story based on this premise. I never heard anyone say it was evil.

TC made a deal with the Ranyhyn. With Elena. We know why they failed. Again, they fit the criteria, but the impossible standard was not applied.

TC saving Marid. TC taking down Kasreyn. TC walking into the Banefire. TC forfeiting his ring to Foul.

How about Foamfollower withholding the hurtloam from Pieten? How about Hyrim taking on a Giant Raver single-handedly? How about Mhoram giving the secret of the Ritual of Desecration to the Lords? How about Cail leaving Revelstone to be with the Merewives? How about Honninscrave daring to match his will against a Sunbane-enhanced Raver? etc. etc.

The story is filled, literally filled, with people who make decisions where the fate of the world hangs in the balance. You can argue that any of them were the wrong choice at the time, because of the risk involved, because of the potential damage. All of them. And no one calls them evil.

Of course, we know it turned out okay...

This is just unfairness. You're manufacturing reasons why Linden is wrong when none exist.

[Zarathustra]

This is just unfairness. You're manufacturing reasons why Linden is wrong when none exist.

Mostly, I agree with you, except for this last part. Linden can be wrong or make incorrect decisions, without being evil. So we've got to be careful to distinguish the two. I don't think anything Linden is doing right now makes her evil. I mean, we're talking about a character who murdered her own mother, and yet going after "too much" power in order to save her son makes her "evil?" This girl certainly doesn't need power to do bad things!

Yet, I think she is making mistakes along the way, which will have negative ramifications later. Otherwise, the narrative tension is diminished. Just like Covenant's bargain with the ranyhyn was a mistake which ended up hurting them. While I think that something good will still come out of those mistakes and those negative ramifications, it won't be until the end. And there will be much suffering along the way.

[wayfriend]

Mostly, I agree with you

I know

except for this last part. Linden can be wrong or make incorrect decisions, without being evil.

Yes, but lets remember that this is a constructed story. Which means either (a) the author is leading us to believe she is mistaken in order to increase the suspense, when in fact she is not mistaken, or (b) the character is making mistakes in order to learn things that are needed in resolving the final crisis, in which case the mistakes are necessary, or (c) the character that is making the mistakes is not part of resolving the crisis, but is used to set the tone or the plot along for the character who does.

I think that (d) the character makes mistakes which leads to a failure to resolve the final crisis, is not an option here.

I think that (c) is not realistic. I can't see Donaldson making Linden part of the problem instead of part of the solution, not after two books with her POV.

Therefore, I enjoy the suspense in wondering whether any mistakes Linden makes will be (a) or (b).

Then again, I don't see as many outright mistakes as everyone else, either.

[Fist and Faith]

I've already blissfully blocked out much of what Linden said and thought in FR. But I don't remember her actually doing anything that I thought was evil. She may have done things that could have gone horribly wrong, but I don't think they have. At least they haven't yet. She certainly has the attitude of, "I don't give a damn what happens to anybody or the Land, as long as I save Jeremiah." But until she starts causing harm, I won't say she's evil. My next-door neighbor may fondly wish to kill everybody who drives by his house. But until he does it, if I'm aware of his thoughts and feelings, I can only consider him a wacko.

Which, as is well-known, is what I think of Linden.

Long Live THOOLAH!!

[wayfriend]

She certainly has the attitude of, "I don't give a damn what happens to anybody or the Land, as long as I save Jeremiah."

For example? What is one thing she did that you can say this?

[Fist and Faith]

My point is that she hasn't done things that demonstrate that attitude, but she's said those words. Or close to them. Didn't she?? I'm don't think I'm making this up. But I'm home from work today and at least tomorrow with diverticulitis, so I'm in pain, dizzy, and fevered. But still! No?

[dlbpharmd]

My point is that she hasn't done things that demonstrate that attitude, but she's said those words. Or close to them. Didn't she?? I'm don't think I'm making this up. But I'm home from work today and at least tomorrow with diverticulitis, so I'm in pain, dizzy, and fevered. But still! No?

Linden had similar thoughts in ROTE, especially before going to the Land.

The only thing that Linden has done that she knew to be truly evil was creating the ceasure in ROTE.

[Zarathustra]

She certainly has the attitude of, "I don't give a damn what happens to anybody or the Land, as long as I save Jeremiah."

For example? What is one thing she did that you can say this?

At the beginning of Runes, when she first enters the Land, Donaldson says (paraphrase): "In her scales, Jeremiah outweighed the fate of entire worlds."

That, and she's willing to violate the Law of Time by creating a caesure. She's willing to take risks which people around her feel are too extreme. Such as: destroying the Demondim's caesure, trusting Roger/Thomas enough to go back in time with them even though the urviles tried to stop her, allowing Roger/Thomas to continue to the EarthBlood even though she has doubts about him, deciding not to forgive, challenging the Harrow, rushing to Andelain despite Hollian and Sunder's warning . . . and finally . . . raising TC from the dead despite the fact that no one--friend or foe--would think it's a good idea.

[Ur Dead]

She would try anything that would release Jeremiah? Including killing him?
No, she would do her utmost to rescue him. But to destroy the world would be to destroy her son. That is out.

She created the ceasure for a purpose. To to return with the Staff of Law. She knew that it was evil. But she created one to return to her time and pull the Deamondin with her so there wouldn't be a paradox of time. Can you imagine the problem if she left them in that time. They would have raised havoc and caused a rift. It was Esmer who summoned a ceasure to transport her back in time and she needed a way to return. Ceasures were being created continually by Joan. I doubt that one more would have broke the camels back.

Destroying the Deamondin's ceasure was an act of Law. She used the Staff to do that along with a boost from the ur viles who are in her service.

With Roger, well even the Masters were fooled by the disguise. She had her doubts about Covenant but she didn't have the proof. And she was going along because it seems that Covenant had a plan. So why didn't the ur viles attack Roger before Esmer showed up? Esmer tried to hold the croyel from going back, so he knew it was Roger. Why wasn't Linden warned? Maybe it was because the Staff needed to be a bit more completed. Linden didn't have the power to stop Roger and the croyel until the Staff was dipped in the Earthblood. The Staff had runes added by CW and yet he said the staff was mallable. So even with CW's addition there is more needed to be done to the Staff to make it fully complete.

The Masters could have warned Linden about the Harrow. Suspected he was an Insequent. And maybe Linden would have asked the Mahdoubt to idenify the vistor as one.

Up to Hollian, Linden was never given a straight forward answer. And in Andelain if the dead could speak she could have taken a different direction. In fact if she was given any information she needed, she could have done things alot differently. I havn't read in FR whom silented the dead. All I knew was they were denied to speak.

She had no choice but to raise TC. He's the only one who will talk to Linden and give her a answer. Why didn't the harrow or the Elohim warned her that it would rouse the worm?


Besides, if she didn't do all that stuff, we wouldn't have TC back.

[Zarathustra]

Ur Dead, everything you've said sounds right, on a quick skim. But even if you are right, it misses the point. We're talking about her attitude, not the rationalizations for these actions. Ultimately, she did all those things for Jeremiah, even if Donaldson can come up with logical reasons for them to be necessary. Really, the most damning evidence is the quote Variol Farseer pointed out:

If Good cannot be accomplished by evil means, then she would believe that her means were not evil.

Donaldson is walking an interesting, well-crafted tightrope here.

[Aleksandr]

Re: ...trusting Roger/Thomas enough to go back in time with them even though the urviles tried to stop her

Linden did not know what "TC" planned when she met him. And the Ur-Viles were (probably sill are) on probation themselves as far as how trustworthy they are. The fact that Waynhim did not join them led Linden to doubt their purpose. Also, at that stage of the story Linden has no idea "TC" is Roger. She has a few vague doubts but nothing substantial enough that would prevent her from meeting him in a public place with the Masters present.

[alanm]

well I have just finished FR and it was in large parts a disappointment. Perhaps the only really powerful part was when linden drank the blood of the earth. This did explain the first section of the book and was a suitable way for that to end. However there are some parts of even that part that I found difficult to understand. The massive healing that went on in BHs camp and all Linden had to do was say to BH not to ever mention it. It seems such a major event in the life of so many normal people that stories must have passdown through the ages and yet never mentioned in the 1st chrons. But then this is the way of sequels, they never really seem to work.

Lindens reference to her gold ring being TCs, yet TC said at the end of WGW 'pick it up it is yours now'.

And yes I still cannot fathom the reason for this new series. I have seen no clear evidence of how Foul was able to survive being defeated by TC and how the healing of the land by Linden and then the passing of the Staff of Law to Sunder and Hollian can have gone the way the new series is going.

It seems to me to be a little bit fabricated.

[amanibhavam]

But his isn't a new series after all - it was conceived at the same time as the Second Chronicles and should be regarded as a coherent story, despite the long timespan between the writing of the two.
True, SRD's writing style has changed, is much more Gap-style, and that affects the story: we are mainly kept in the dark about the possible outcomes and intentions. All we can do is speculate, and wait.

[MsMary]

What irritates me is her incessant whining about her inadequacies, its the same kinda stuff we saw from TC during the first chronicles, probably why so many of us loved the giants and the land itself.

I have honestly never been able to understand the people who complain about what TC was like in the first Chrons. I never had a problem with him--he was a great character, very well fleshed out.
Linden has a noticably different character, but with enough similarities that the reading experience is almost the same, and she's equally well fleshed out. I suppose it's not surprising people who didn't like TC in the first chrons don't like Linden in FR--this book is a lot like The Illearth War, in tone and everything, not just superficially.

I agree about TC. I always thought that he was way too hard on himself.

Linden, on the other hand, is a whiner. It gets on my nerves.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Ur Dead, everything you've said sounds right, on a quick skim. But even if you are right, it misses the point. We're talking about her attitude, not the rationalizations for these actions. Ultimately, she did all those things for Jeremiah, even if Donaldson can come up with logical reasons for them to be necessary. Really, the most damning evidence is the quote Variol Farseer pointed out:

If Good cannot be accomplished by evil means, then she would believe that her means were not evil.

Donaldson is walking an interesting, well-crafted tightrope here.

These novels contain personal growth journeys, for example,
Lord Mhorman learning why the Oath of Peace was wrong despite
its good intentions. Linden's path contains knowledge of
what the Good is, not so much the means to attain it.

[Relayer]

If Good cannot be accomplished by evil means, then she would believe that her means were not evil.

Also interesting is that earlier (somewhere during the Salva Gildenbourne parts) she thinks it more as:

"The Waynhim believed that good cannot be accomplished by evil means. She hoped that her means were not evil."

I think this was her attitude earlier, too. At least here, she's hoping... but then a day or two later, it's as if she's so afraid to face the possible consequences, she just arrogates to herself the right to decide she's not doing evil. This does not bode well...

[Cleburne]

I finished the book FR before xmas and found it hard to put down I enjoyed the first half better than the second what with Roger and the Croyel it did come as a surprise but in general I was quiet happy with it.I read the first and second chronicles many years ago and always found TC hard to deal with due to all his self pity I havent found that as much with LA.