Covenant, the Arch, and Book 9

[ninjaboy]

Well as far as we know it has a definate end..

Has anyone read the Worm Ouroborous? Or spell it?

My girlfriend made me read these books by David Eddings - typical hero-fantasy types, only one of the main characters that's not a 'ggod guy' dies.. Anyway his books have their own universe, and some series are about certain groups in that universe, and others are about completely different, unrelated people... And their Gods..

I don't know why I was thinking of that.. But if you do read those David Eddings books you will realise how awesome the Unbeliever chronichles are!

[Stutty]

my wonder is, why does it have to be 3 years between each book?

2? ok i understand 2. but 3?? i'm going to be well into my 30s by the time i know how it ends. i don't even want to think about it. it's going to drive me crazy. i've seen those books on my father's shelf since i was a small child. they've been in my life...forever.

bah.

Welcome to the Watch Blind!

::mutters about these damn kids and thanks UD for being even older than me::

stutt

[blindherviolet]

alright, alright. you guys got me

[wayfriend]

Here's an idea. This may be the wrong thread, but I could not find a better one.

Something Earthbrah said in another thread got me thinking...

Suppose Joan's pounding of her temple represents her trying to punish not herself, but Covenant. Foul is in her head, and now Covenant and Foul are one. So Joan smites her head because that is where Covenant is. (She's insane, so that makes perfect sense to her.) The more she tries to strike him, the more she hurts herself, which she considers condign, because she hates herself for wishing to hurt Covenant.

Then Linden gives her the ring. Now, when she strikes Covenant, she strikes him with wild magic. Through her connection to the Land (whatever that is).

But Covenant is one with the Arch of Time. When she strikes Covenant, she strikes the Arch. Covenant, as Time Warden, absorbs the blows, protects the Arch. But, unlike the events of WGW, this is not his ring, this is not his own wild magic. His ability to protect the Arch is imperfect. Slowly, over millenia, the Arch fragments more and more.

This idea may offer some insight as to what will happen now that Covenant is resurrected. He may be in serious trouble the next time Joan pounds her forehead, as he may no longer have the stature to absorb so mighty a blow.

[earthbrah]

Wayfriend wrote:

But, unlike the events of WGW, this is not his ring, this is not his own wild magic. His ability to protect the Arch is imperfect. Slowly, over millenia, the Arch fragments more and more.

Hey, yeah...her ring is not the same as his, it's not TC's wild magic. And not just because the ring is a different one. Covenant IS the white gold; but if that's true, then so is Joan, but in a different way, a different expression of the same power.

His ability to protect the Arch is imperfect--is that because he relinquished his ring in WGW? Or is it just the nature of his Time Warden-ness? One of the big questions: Will TC take back his ring if it's offered him in the next book? I don't think he will ('cause that'd be just too easy), but I wonder...

And what would happen if a white gold ring were cracked or destroyed in the Land? How could that even be made to happen?

Man, I'm gonna have sweet dreams tonight.

[Pumaman]

I always thought that Lord Fouls Bane was the Ill-earth stone, one of the "banes buried deep in the earth" by the despiser at the creation.

[ninjaboy]

So since Covenant IS wild magic, and will presumably be travelling with Linden through the next couple of books, would there be any point of her actually keeping the ring?

Though I kind of doubt TC would be keen on Anyone using White Magic coz of it's effect of the Arch of Time...

[HighLordKevin]

I was reading this topic, and something occurred to me. First, I've heard it theorized that the Land is just the externalization of Covenant himself. At one time the Land was a healthy and vibrant place, as was Covenant. Something happened along the way (and we all know what that was, that a) caused the Land to be destroyed, and b) gave rise to the Despiser (because we know up to this point the Despiser was there but he was kind of hiding in the weeds, so to speak. Kevin didn't even know about him until it was too late.) We also know that Covenant has an aversion to power, he abhors it, doesn't want the responsibility for it, and only uses it when he has no choice. Now, in the GI, I was intrigued by the comment made by SRD that Covenant was continuing his quest to become whole in the Final Chronicles. Covenant made a point in the Second Chronicles that he and Foul were becoming one and the same, that they were basically two sides of the same coin. It occurred to me that perhaps Foul was not just the evil side of Covenant, but maybe he also represented the healthy part of Covenant? The healthy part that craved power. That was able to use it in ways that Covenant's leprous side cannot. And that in the end, when he does become whole, he also becomes healthy, and in that way the Earth itself, now changed, is also healthy. I know I'm probably off the mark, but it was a thought.

[wayfriend]

Good post, HLK. Certainly Foul would be that part of Covenant that uses power without restraint, and even craves it. But is that the "healthy" part? I would rather say that it is unhealthy that Covenant's parts are split, and it would be healthy again if/when they become unified.

[sweetbread]

Which points to a man who sometimes acts as Covenant would, and sometimes acts as Foul would. Very, very dangerous.

Hmmmm... the "Hellfire and Damnation" version of Esmer? =)

[thewormoftheworld'send]

His ability to protect the Arch is imperfect--is that because he relinquished his ring in WGW? Or is it just the nature of his Time Warden-ness? One of the big questions: Will TC take back his ring if it's offered him in the next book? I don't think he will ('cause that'd be just too easy), but I wonder...

Feeling inadequate to carry such a burden, and because it is not her ring, LA will offer it to TC. But, much to her chagrin, he will refuse it. He did, after all, vow in WGW never to use power again.

Neither Infelice nor TC understand that LA's act of resurrection is only apparently a great evil. Her act at once rouses the Worm and weakens the Arch by taking away its Keystone, TC. Joan's caesures will weaken the Arch at an even faster pace than before, the only reason it lasted as long as it did was because of the Time Warden.

However, the destruction of the Arch does not necessarily herald the destruction of the Earth. The latter event comes only with the Worm uncoiling from its eon's long sleep, and since this takes a long time in human terms they have plenty of time to deal with the Arch.

Indeed, the destruction of the Arch is necessary for the preservation of the Earth. Bringing TC back to life, thus hastening the Arch's destruction, was unwittingly the right thing to do even though the Worm was awakened. With the Arch gone, LF will be able to return to the heavens to do battle with his sworn Enemy, and at the same time the consequence of LA's "magicks," the Worm's awakening, will be prevented.
LF will triumph and yet the Land will be saved.

[Lord Foul's Breath Mint]

With regard to the posts seeking to draw meaning from the title of Lord Foul's Bane: do I remember this correctly - didn't Lester delRey come up with the titles for the first three books, with no input from Donaldson?

[Krazy Kat]

I always thought that Lord Fouls Bane was the Ill-earth stone, one of the "banes buried deep in the earth" by the despiser at the creation.

Right on!

I always thought the ill earth stone had the power of deception
the opposite to the orcrest
one reacts to earthpower the other doesnt

what about iron?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Not even SRD knows what the bane refers to. Lester del Rey came up with the title in order to pique the interests of prospective readers, and now he's dead so nobody knows what he was thinking the bane was. It probably has multiple references, as is often the case with the titles of these books.

[Zarathustra]

I posted this in the 1st-2nd Chrons thread:

I was explicitly thinking of the Creator, the Despiser, and wild magic as aspects of Covenant himself. And the part of himself which he denies--wild magic, his own personal power to assign meaning to his life and experiences--is the part which must mediate his internal conflicts (the struggle between the creative and destructive sides of his nature).
(04/27/2004)

So, LF has always been part of TC. I like Wayfriend's theory that this relationship is moving from figurative-to-literal in the process of the three Chronicles. But what if this is true of the Creator, too? And that's why we didn't see the old beggar this time around? But more: what if TC's apotheosis at the end of WGW and his subsequent return in FR have a) paved the way for TC to become the Creator in the same way he's becoming LF, and b) provided a means for the Creator to enter his own creation?

This isn't as contradictory as it sounds. Why should TC's "Despiser-half" have a more prominent role in this story than his "Creator-half"?? If TC was always these two halves figuratively, then why can't he become both halves literally?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Instead of simply asking, just toss out a theory, that's what I do.

[Zarathustra]

Instead of simply asking, just toss out a theory, that's what I do.

Is there a meaningful difference between, "here's a theory" and "what if . . . ?" ?

(Should I have phrased that as a declarative statement? )

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Instead of simply asking, just toss out a theory, that's what I do.

Is there a meaningful difference between, "here's a theory" and "what if . . . ?" ?

(Should I have phrased that as a declarative statement? )

I'll take it that way, and just try to respond to the literal/figurative comment.

What we cannot do now is claim that LF or the Creator are archetypes of TC's psyche since it has obviously ceased to exist, TC is dead and buried in the "real" world. TC is now part of LA's psyche. You no longer are given a Despite part of TC, the part that despises lepers. Wayfriend says that the Despiser is the part of TC that craves power. But he's dead in the "real" world so that's impossible. It would be more apt to state that in the Last Chronicles the Despiser is the part of Linden (not the part of TC) that craves power. So the archetypal role that the Despiser plays changes as the protagonist or main point of view changes. He remains the Despiser, some universal iconic part of all of us, but the focus of the Despite depends on the person.

But for LA it is not originally a craving for power (Despite is not a craving for power, it is a hatred for all life and Creation), but a hatred of the weakness inherent to her that led to her failure, her impotence, to save her father; and then the craving for power over life that led to her euthanizing her mother (which reminds me more of a Raver's cravings than the Despiser's).

So:

Is it figuratively or literally the case that the Despiser (or the Creator) is part of Linden? I don't think it really matters. What matters is the lesson to be learned. For example, it could be the case that I (Worm) am the part of your psyche that "despises" whatever makes you believe this debate over literalness is fruitful. It just so happens that I actually exist; but it doesn't have to be the case, and it is really irrelevant whether that element of your psyche has taken reality or is just an archetype, a figurative dream representation.

The whole figurative/literal debate is irrelevant. And I have also stated that it is harmful in that it serves only to distract from the lessons to be learned.

The part about me "despising" is just an example, I don't literally despise it. I do dislike it... somewhat.

[rdhopeca]

Instead of simply asking, just toss out a theory, that's what I do.

Is there a meaningful difference between, "here's a theory" and "what if . . . ?" ?

(Should I have phrased that as a declarative statement? )

I'll take it that way, and just try to respond to the literal/figurative comment.

What we cannot do now is claim that LF or the Creator are archetypes of TC's psyche since it has obviously ceased to exist, TC is dead and buried in the "real" world. TC is now part of LA's psyche. You no longer are given a Despite part of TC, the part that despises lepers. Wayfriend says that the Despiser is the part of TC that craves power. But he's dead in the "real" world so that's impossible. It would be more apt to state that in the Last Chronicles the Despiser is the part of Linden (not the part of TC) that craves power. So the archetypal role that the Despiser plays changes as the protagonist or main point of view changes. He remains the Despiser, some universal iconic part of all of us, but the focus of the Despite depends on the person.

But for LA it is not originally a craving for power (Despite is not a craving for power, it is a hatred for all life and Creation), but a hatred of the weakness inherent to her that led to her failure, her impotence, to save her father; and then the craving for power over life that led to her euthanizing her mother (which reminds me more of a Raver's cravings than the Despiser's).

So:

Is it figuratively or literally the case that the Despiser (or the Creator) is part of Linden? I don't think it really matters. What matters is the lesson to be learned. For example, it could be the case that I (Worm) am the part of your psyche that "despises" whatever makes you believe this debate over literalness is fruitful. It just so happens that I actually exist; but it doesn't have to be the case, and it is really irrelevant whether that element of your psyche has taken reality or is just an archetype, a figurative dream representation.

The whole figurative/literal debate is irrelevant. And I have also stated that it is harmful in that it serves only to distract from the lessons to be learned.

The part about me "despising" is just an example, I don't literally despise it. I do dislike it... somewhat.

One minor detail:

Spoiler

at the end of FR, TC is no longer dead, at least in the Land

So doesn't it become fair to assume that the Despiser can remain as he was, a part of TC?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Is there a meaningful difference between, "here's a theory" and "what if . . . ?" ?

(Should I have phrased that as a declarative statement? )

I'll take it that way, and just try to respond to the literal/figurative comment.

What we cannot do now is claim that LF or the Creator are archetypes of TC's psyche since it has obviously ceased to exist, TC is dead and buried in the "real" world. TC is now part of LA's psyche. You no longer are given a Despite part of TC, the part that despises lepers. Wayfriend says that the Despiser is the part of TC that craves power. But he's dead in the "real" world so that's impossible. It would be more apt to state that in the Last Chronicles the Despiser is the part of Linden (not the part of TC) that craves power. So the archetypal role that the Despiser plays changes as the protagonist or main point of view changes. He remains the Despiser, some universal iconic part of all of us, but the focus of the Despite depends on the person.

But for LA it is not originally a craving for power (Despite is not a craving for power, it is a hatred for all life and Creation), but a hatred of the weakness inherent to her that led to her failure, her impotence, to save her father; and then the craving for power over life that led to her euthanizing her mother (which reminds me more of a Raver's cravings than the Despiser's).

So:

Is it figuratively or literally the case that the Despiser (or the Creator) is part of Linden? I don't think it really matters. What matters is the lesson to be learned. For example, it could be the case that I (Worm) am the part of your psyche that "despises" whatever makes you believe this debate over literalness is fruitful. It just so happens that I actually exist; but it doesn't have to be the case, and it is really irrelevant whether that element of your psyche has taken reality or is just an archetype, a figurative dream representation.

The whole figurative/literal debate is irrelevant. And I have also stated that it is harmful in that it serves only to distract from the lessons to be learned.

The part about me "despising" is just an example, I don't literally despise it. I do dislike it... somewhat.

One minor detail:

Spoiler

at the end of FR, TC is no longer dead, at least in the Land

So doesn't it become fair to assume that the Despiser can remain as he was, a part of TC?

I gathered from what TC was telling LF in Gravin Threndor at the end of WGW that the Despiser and TC are now the same, whether TC is alive or dead in the Land.