Hold on to your seats... How the Insequent are NOT a problem

[Seppi2112]

We have heard many times that the arch of time is resilient... that changes to the past are only problematic if they can not be explained away; for example, Linden is explained as an Unfettered, which alters the history of the Unfettered a bit but barely budges the history of the land, thus preserving the Arch.

And so the question that has been bugging me is... when did the Insequent appear?

People seem to have an issue with the Insequent because (in their words) SRD is introducing a new race in the middle of the last chronicles that "has been secretly pulling the strings and influencing the history of the land since the beginning."

OR HAVE THEY???

The first time we even HEAR of the Insequent is after the first evidence of time travel in the land. They don't appear before we as readers are exposed to the concept of caesures.

Let me reiterate... we have issues with the Insequent because they appeared out of nowhere and seamlessly (silently!!) infiltrated the land's history... but that's exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen when the Arch of time is violated and then protected! The greater narrative is unchanged while small details are altered.

There is a battle for the integrity of the Arch of time and the Insequent are the RESULT of that battle.

In short, the Insequent are NOT a retcon and are NOT a source of failed narrative. SRD may only have imagined the Insequent recently, but I think he imagined them as a consequence of disruptions of the Arch as opposed to imagining a new race that then required him to shift the narrative to fit them.

[dlbpharmd]

How do you reconcile your theory with Stave's description of the Haruchai and The Vizard?

[Seppi2112]

Stave didn't 'exist' until Caesures already started playing with the past... which is to say that his knowledge of the past is necessarily suspect, as the only person whose knowledge of the past that can be trusted is Linden's (sorry THOOLAH) since she wasn't present during the alterations to the timeline. The appearance of the Vizard might change small details but didn't change the fact that the Haruchai did in fact head into the land.

[Seareach]

How do you reconcile your theory with Stave's description of the Haruchai and The Vizard?

I think it's a great theory, Seppi2112, but dlb has a point: Stave does recall in Chapter 5, part 2 (um...to my best recollection that's the chapter) that the Haruchai had met and fought the Vizard.

That said, I still love your theory!

[wayfriend]

Yes, the Insequent could indeed be the result of a small change in history.

But you have to then ask, huh? How could history have been changed to cause the Insequent to be created?

And then you have to ask, why would Donaldson need that to have happen for his story?

SRD has posted in the GI that the Insequent are an unavoidable consequence of the years going by, and refusing to throw away a good idea because he didn't think of it 25 years ago.

Maybe he's trying to mislead us when he says that. But he need not be.

[dlbpharmd]

Stave didn't 'exist' until Caesures already started playing with the past... which is to say that his knowledge of the past is necessarily suspect, as the only person whose knowledge of the past that can be trusted is Linden's (sorry THOOLAH) since she wasn't present during the alterations to the timeline. The appearance of the Vizard might change small details but didn't change the fact that the Haruchai did in fact head into the land.

Per your theory, the Insequent are the result of "small changes" created by the AoT to protect the timeline (I hope I have you correct.) The creation of Stave's memory of the first encounter between the Haruchai and The Vizard would not be a "small change." Rather, this would be a profound change that dramatically affected the history of an entire race.

[Seppi2112]

With ALL the instability in the Arch of Time since the 2nd chronicles ended, there has to be SOME way to protect history.

Roger himself (as TC) stated that many aspects of his personality were in existence doing different things at once... doesn't that allow for the possibility of the Insequent as either reflections/extensions/consequences of TC's stewardship?

How else does the Arch of Time protect itself?

[Seppi2112]

this would be a profound change that dramatically affected the history of an entire race.

The appearance of the Theomach in Berek's time is a MUCH more profound change than the appearance of the Vizard... so either the Insequent really DID exist throughout history and weren't mentioned until now, or the alteration of Haruchai w/ and w/o the Vizard (and Berek w/ and w/o the Theomach) is mild enough overall that they are more preservational than obstructionary.

Remember that we never ever heard the history of the Haruchai before they came to the land... we don't know if in the history of the 1st and 2nd Chronicles they encountered the Vizard or not.

[dlbpharmd]

Is there instability? The ceasures have only been in existence for the last 100 years of the Land's history. They can only reach back to the breaking of the Law of Life (ie, the death of Caer-Caveral and the resurrection of Hollian,) but they didn't roam the Land until Joan's wedding ring was returned to her.

[dlbpharmd]

The appearance of the Theomach in Berek's time is a MUCH more profound change than the appearance of the Vizard...

But, the Theomach ALREADY existed in Berek's time (we know that because Brinn defeated him at the One Tree.) The danger to the AoT (which the Theomach had to correct) was Linden's appearance to Berek.

[High Lord Tolkien]

The appearance of the Theomach in Berek's time is a MUCH more profound change than the appearance of the Vizard... so either the Insequent really DID exist throughout history and weren't mentioned until now, or the alteration of Haruchai w/ and w/o the Vizard (and Berek w/ and w/o the Theomach) is mild enough overall that they are more preservational than obstructionary.

Remember that we never ever heard the history of the Haruchai before they came to the land... we don't know if in the history of the 1st and 2nd Chronicles they encountered the Vizard or not.

I have no problem with the Insequent always being in the history of the Land.
I don't even remember reading anything that contradicted that on the Watch.
Was something said about it in the GI?
If you claim that there's an "original" timeline where the Haruchai never met the Vizard , then how do you explain the legend of the Guardian of the One Tree in the "original"?

[dlbpharmd]

If you claim that there's an "original" timeline where the Haruchai never met the Vizard , then how do you explain the legend of the Guardian of the One Tree in the "original"?

This point actually supports Seppi's theory, because if the Haruchai never met The Vizard, then Findail's explanation of the Guardian of the One Tree (as told to Covenant and Linden in WGW) would still be true.

[Seareach]

If you claim that there's an "original" timeline where the Haruchai never met the Vizard , then how do you explain the legend of the Guardian of the One Tree in the "original"?

This point actually supports Seppi's theory, because if the Haruchai never met The Vizard, then Findail's explanation of the Guardian of the One Tree (as told to Covenant and Linden in WGW) would still be true.

But SRD talks (in the GI?) about time being linear. That is, that things happened a certain way and that is the only way. I've always thought that kinda strange: Linden becoming the original Unfettered seemed to contradict that... My point is, there is only one time line.

Is there instability? The ceasures have only been in existence for the last 100 years of the Land's history. They can only reach back to the breaking of the Law of Life (ie, the death of Caer-Caveral and the resurrection of Hollian,) but they didn't roam the Land until Joan's wedding ring was returned to her.

that's not actually right (at least I don't think it is). From the GI:

The place where you and I appear to part company has to do with, well, let's call it the "starting point" for a "caesure's" disruption of time. Your position is logical: Joan got her ring back 90 Land-years ago, so since "caesures" run forward no "caesure" could have existed prior to 90 years ago. But I'm thinking in more symbolic terms. And (this may sound self-contradictory) on a symbolic level I'm thinking very literally. So: the crucial information is in the chapter where Linden passes through one of Joan's "caesures". There Joan stands amid the rubble of a shattered cliff. Each of those broken pieces of stone represents a moment or moments of the Land's past. (How was the cliff shattered in the first place? Presumably by the breaking of the Laws of Death and Life.) They do NOT represent moments in Joan's present. So when she destroys one of those pieces of rubble, she is creating a "ceasure" in that specific moment of the Land's past. Could be a hundred years before her present. Could be 3500 years before her present. But--since I insist on thinking of time as linear--all of them *must* represent moments prior to her present rather than after her present: she hasn't destroyed *herself* with wild magic; hasn't sent *herself* gyring chaotically into her own future.

When Joan feels compelled to let out a blast of power, she has, in essence, all of the past 3500 or so Land-years to pick from as a starting point for her "caesure".

I've confused myself now... just ignore me.

[Ur Dead]

Maybe with this post

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14581

Wayfriend made a statement and I asked him this:

Wayfriend

I found that

The Unfettered represent the capacity for people in the Land to abandon lore and find their own path to power, however strange and bizarre that path may be.

To be very similair to what the Insequent do.. <-- a spoiler tag in that post.

Maybe it's the way you phrased it.

Could it be that people who are unfettered became the Insequent? Maybe it's they who changed the timeline?

[Seppi2112]

I think there are similarities, but I don't think they're unfettered per se. I still think the Insequent are a byproduct of TC as the arch, which is why they didn't exist before the last chronicles... I think Roger was telling half-truths as always and TC really IS in multiple places at once via the Insequent.

It explains their sudden appearance, their ability to know incredibly arcane and specific things (TC has access to all time and thus all knowledge), and the reason their conflicts always resolve with one being destroyed through madness (mental conflict) as opposed to direct death.

[amanibhavam]

on a tangent: there is this strange thought in me; the appearance of an outsider in the Land is somehow always tied to some event (coma, injury, loss of consciousness etc.) in their real life. So when Linden went back to the Land's past, first to find the Staff (how much was that? 300 years?) and then to Berek's time (way before even TC's first coming to the Land) should those visits correspond to an earlier event in Linden's life IRL? Or as those actions are sequential within Linden's lifeflow they do not really affect Linden's own past?

Confusing, this time travel business is, my young padawan.

[Aleksandr]

Re: The appearance of the Theomach in Berek's time is a MUCH more profound change than the appearance of the Vizard

I'm still at a loss to understand why people think the Theomach tutoring Berek is such a change to what (little) we knew about Berek's life and times previously. It isn't. It's an addition to the story, but not a change, unless you adopt a sort of Landian Fundamentalism which regards the "Legend of Berek Halfhand" as told by Atiaran as Creator-inspired Holy Writ.

SRD did something similar when he intruded the Elohim into the Land's history as the source of the Colossus and the Forestals. No one seems to think that addition "changed the story".

All SRD has done with the Theomach (as far as the past goes-- I suspect he's important for the future too) is provide Berek with a Merlin or Gandalf-type mentor. That's a fairly venerable fantasy archtype, and there's nothing wrong with it. Berek is still the great hero who stood on Mount Thunder and swore allegiance to the Earthpower by his own will and wisdom.

[SGuilfoyle1966]

Aleksandr, agree with what you say here.
We knew about Braithair, Elohim and Sandgorgons from the first Chronicles.
But we didn't know about croyel, arguleh, Nicor, the Worm of the World's End, umm, possibly a few other things. And those were not problems in the Second Chronicles.
Perhaps I'm also dumb, but in years of reading and re-reading the first Chronicles, I absolutely, completely missed the mind speech of the Haruchai, until it was bluntly stated in the second chronicles.
That's when certain phrases popped out at me -- like spoken language being uncomfortable or unfamiliar to the Bloodguard, etc.
(I started reading it when I was 12 or 13, now, so bear with me on that one.)
There IS a problem with the Insequent. But SRD has stated bluntly what it is, and it's a slip of his thinking in the varying tales of the Guardian of the One Tree ONLY.
I still haven't figured out why THAT problem is such a big deal to SRD.
Findail said one tale, that Berek set the Guardian. The Theomach appears to be the result of a very different tale.
It's EASY to resolve. Findail was a lying turd, embarrassed that one of his race lost to the Theomach.
That's it.
Oh yeah. Soulbiter. BIG deal in the Earth. But do we know a thing about it in First Chronicles? Not remotely.
Not also a problem.

[wayfriend]

I'm still at a loss to understand why people think the Theomach tutoring Berek is such a change to what (little) we knew about Berek's life and times previously. It isn't.

It's not a historical change. It's a change in how we the readers perceive Berek. Finding out that Berek was a mere nice guy propped up by the Theomach, who was the real author of the Council of Lords and the real founder of the Lord's lore, does tarnish Berek's rep a bit.

[Bran Pendragon]

That's very harsh on Berek. We don't know at what stage in Berek's life the Theomach became the Guardian and stopped actively helping him.

Berek had already essentially won his war when Theo arrived.

To run with the example from earlier, that's a bit like saying that Frodo and Aragorn aren't great heroes because they had Gandalf helping them at different times - they still had to DO the things they did.

And Linden's observations of Berek show that he was a great man in his own right, separate of Earthpower etc. How disappointed do you think Nassic would have been to meet TC as he was in the 1st Chrons?