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

[Aleksandr]

It's not a historical change. It's a change in how we the readers perceive Berek.

Any significant information about Berek whatsoever would change how we see him, since we would be getting details we didn't have before. Had SRD introduced Berek's wife instead (or at least the woman who mothered Damelon) that would change how we see Berek, throwing his devotion to the Queen (among other things) into a rather awkward light.

Berek was a mere nice guy propped up by the Theomach

Where do you get that? Berek's most important accomplishment by far, the discovery of and pledging to the Earthpower on Mount Thunder (and subsequent defeat of the King's army thereby), was his own accomplishment only. The Theomach was not part of it. I don't feel that Berek has been diminished in any way at all by having a mentor afterward. Plainly, his knowledge had to come from somewhere, just as the lore of the New Lords later had its source in Kevin's wards. In the original legend the Creator taught Berek (at least with regard to the Staff of Law), but that violated the basic principle of the Creator's exclusion. This actually works better, IMO.

[drew]

My theroy on the Insequent is similar to Seppi's...although, I don't think that Time itself created them...I think the Timewarden Himself created them.

He can be anywhere and everywhere and anywhen---I think the Insequent are his tools for keeeping the arch in tact.

[lucimay]

Plainly, his knowledge had to come from somewhere, just as the lore of the New Lords later had its source in Kevin's wards. In the original legend the Creator taught Berek (at least with regard to the Staff of Law), but that violated the basic principle of the Creator's exclusion. This actually works better, IMO.

yeah and ya see that was always a sticking point for me too.

i always wondered how berek learned what he learned.
works for me.

anyway...why should we as readers know something aforehand that the people of the Land (or at least the majority of them) didn't?

if you've got a problem with the Insequent, just think of them in terms of story structure and their functions as characters.
everybody's getting hung up on how they came into the story.
they serve a function that the story bears.
there are things from backstory that were heretofore UNexplained.
as SRD explains them to himself, they come into the story.
he must have asked himSELF at least SOME of the questions
we're all the time discussing in here. right?
we were talking about this discussion in scrabble tonight
and i was telling Seareach that to me, this is ye old hero journey
and the Insequent were either helpers or obstacles.
she says both.
i say that's the real question yet unanswered.
looking forward to more Insequent.

My theroy on the Insequent is similar to Seppi's...although, I don't think that Time itself created them...I think the Timewarden Himself created them.

He can be anywhere and everywhere and anywhen---I think the Insequent are his tools for keeeping the arch in tact.

oooooo!! sh!t thats good TOO!!!

[Seppi2112]

I think the Timewarden Himself created them.

That's what I'm saying, heh. They're all an aspect of TC that he created to ward time.

[wayfriend]

Berek was a mere nice guy propped up by the Theomach

Where do you get that?

Because the Theomach was an Insequent armed with the knowledge of *everything*. He *knew* Berek's future, everything he needed to learn, everything he needed to do. Berek *couldn't* fail.

And we know that, when the Theomach met him, Berek had no Earthpower or Law lore; it call came from his tutelage with the Theomach. And the Theomach knew everything Berek needed to accomplish, and ensured that he accomplished it.

Berek's most important accomplishment by far, the discovery of and pledging to the Earthpower on Mount Thunder (and subsequent defeat of the King's army thereby), was his own accomplishment only. The Theomach was not part of it.

Not according to Fatal Revenant. In Fatal Revenant, Berek couldn't access his discovery of Earthpower until the Theomach helped unlock it. The Theomach knew what Berek needed to know, because he knows everything Berek will ever need to know. He's the ultimate crib sheet.

[duke]

Quote -

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.

Sheer brilliance! I concur!

[Aleksandr]

Because the Theomach was an Insequent armed with the knowledge of *everything*. He *knew* Berek's future, everything he needed to learn, everything he needed to do. Berek *couldn't* fail.

Huh? Then since we (via Linden and her companions) are viewing Berek from 10,000 years in the future that applies to everyone. Berek can't fail, because we know he didn't fail. That's a good complaint to levy against the time-traveling aspect of the story, though it doesn't diminish Berek just raise a lot of unanswerable metaphysical questions about free will and the like.

Not according to Fatal Revenant.

Then you are reading a different book than I read. My copy makes it very explicitly clear that the epic battle on Mount Thunder, and the calling of the Fire Lions, occured BEFORE the Theomach came on the scene with Linden and company in tow.

I see Berek's revelation and vow on Mt Thunder as being far more significant than the later business of lore-tutoring. In a sense it's like Jesus' Resurrection is fundamental to Christianity in a much deeper way than all the theologizing and sacramentalizing that came after. To be sure without the latter you wouldn't have Christianity in anything like its historical form, but Jesus is still not made less by all the bureaucratic and philosophical stuff that came later.

By the way, how much did the Theomach teach? Somehow I don't see him dictating the whole Seven Wards for which Kevin then took credit. We may get more info on this, but my impresson is that the Theomach was key to the forging of the Staff of Law and not much else of major importance. I mean, I'm sure he taught a lot, but I think it was mainly "Intro to Earthpower 101" stuff. Berek and his successors did all the PhD level stuff later (again, excepting the Staff).

[wayfriend]

Because the Theomach was an Insequent armed with the knowledge of *everything*. He *knew* Berek's future, everything he needed to learn, everything he needed to do. Berek *couldn't* fail.

Huh? Then since we (via Linden and her companions) are viewing Berek from 10,000 years in the future that applies to everyone. Berek can't fail, because we know he didn't fail. That's a good complaint to levy against the time-traveling aspect of the story, though it doesn't diminish Berek just raise a lot of unanswerable metaphysical questions about free will and the like.

No, that's not what I mean. I'm not referring to a future view. I'm talking about a guy right on Berek's elbow. With him every day. Incomprehensible power and complete knowledge, guiding Berek. Making sure Berek does everything right, making no mistakes.

Not according to Fatal Revenant.

Then you are reading a different book than I read. My copy makes it very explicitly clear that the epic battle on Mount Thunder, and the calling of the Fire Lions, occured BEFORE the Theomach came on the scene with Linden and company in tow.

Sigh.

You said upthread that the Theomach was not part of Berek's accomplishment of the discovery of Earthpower. We both know that Fatal Revenant reveals that Berek could not remember the seven words until the Theomach helped him remember. Therefore, the Theomach was part of Berek's accomplishment of the discovery of Earthpower. There is also the "Intro to Earthpower 101" stuff, which you mention ... that's part of the discovery of the Earthpower, too.

I see Berek's revelation and vow on Mt Thunder as being far more significant than the later business of lore-tutoring.

That's an opinion I cannot hold, which may explain our difference above. Knowing something is there is one thing; finding out how to get to it, finding out how to use it, is another thing. Knowing of Earthpower but never learning how to use it would be a substantially less significant accomplishment. For example, Covenant learned he had the power of wild magic early in LFB, but it was figuring out how and when and why to use it was his accomplishment.

[MsMary]

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.

That's not how the story affected me at all. Berek was already a leader in his own right when he met the Theomach. Many leaders have advisors who guide and teach them. How does the Theomach's existence diminish Berek in any way?

[wayfriend]

Ms. Mary, let me try one more time.

I think that your interpretation, that Berek is a great man who happened to have a an advisor and teacher, is a good first impression. It's when you think about the implications that you have to come to a different conclusion.

Because there is nothing "just" about Berek's advisor or teacher. The Theomach knew everything that Berek would ever need to know. He knew everything that Berek would ever need to do. If Berek ever seemed to be diverging from what the Theomach knew of Berek, the Theomach would subtly put Berek back on course, to protect the Arch.

The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from that is this: In almost every way that counts, Berek was merely a person who acted out what the Theomach chose.

The only alternative is to have an argument about semantics. Something like this: Berek is great for doing XYZ, despite the fact tha the Theomach was there to make sure he did XYZ no matter what.

Such an argument would rest on the idea that Berek was still making the decisions, still taking the risks. But that would only be true, *only*, as long as Berek was making decisions that the Theomach did not guide. And since the Theomach was protecting history, that's the same as saying, only as long as Berek was making decisions that the Theomach ensured were made.

Can a man be great for doing something when someone greater than him would ensure he does anyway?

I say, no. This is not school, where you get credit for doing things on your own, without your teacher's help. This is *greatness*, and the credit flows from being on your own, from making tough calls without anyone to rely on.

So: Do we know how many times Berek went to do one thing, and the Theomach steered him into the better way? No, we don't know. But based on the fact that the Theomach knew more than Berek, and based on the fact that the Theomach knew all Berek's actions ahead of time, the only reasonable guess is: more often than not.

[MsMary]

You have to come up with a different conclusion (apparently).

I don't happen to agree with your analysis in this case.

[Relayer]

But if the Theomach is "protecting history" then doesn't that imply that this history already existed? In other words, Berek *already did* the things he's supposed to have done, *without* the assistance of the Theomach. This time, yes he's getting help, but it's only to make sure the ripples don't happen.

[wayfriend]

But if the Theomach is "protecting history" then doesn't that imply that this history already existed? In other words, Berek *already did* the things he's supposed to have done, *without* the assistance of the Theomach. This time, yes he's getting help, but it's only to make sure the ripples don't happen.

This gets down another path .... but ...

Whether or not the Theomach got the knowledge from the future somehow, or went to the future to get it, or came from the future ... he now has to join protect time from the ripples caused by his being with Berek. Every time he helps Berek, there is a potential for changing history, and he has to fix it up to make it look like he never did anything.

He is continuously ensuring that Berek is doing what he would have done... but Berek is continually tempted to doing something different because he has the worlds most super awesome knowledge base to bounce ideas off of.

[Unfettered One]

Wayfriend, I have come to respect your positions. However, I have to disagree with you here.

For me, it depends on when Berek makes the first Staff of Law. That's when he loses the advice and mentoring of the Theomach. If that's a relatively short span of years, then the Theomach has no control over what Berek does with the knowledge after that event.

If it's at the end of his life, then maybe I could see your point.

[Zarathustra]

Wow, this is a great thread!

Wayfriend, you are right. Actually, a lot of you are right. There's a lot to deal with here, so bear with me.

WF, you're right that the Theomach completely diminishes Berek's accomplishments for exactly the reasons you lay out: Theomach knew ahead of time what had to occur, and therefore effectively makes Berek's actions "predestined," rather than his own free choices (never underestimate the importance SRD puts on freewill). And we know the Theomach had this foreknowledge because he was able to mitigate Linden's effects or "ripples" so that they didn't cause problems. There-- proof of his foreknowledge of how things should happen, which must necessarily include Berek's actions and development. That is undeniable, if we accept that he staved off Linden's ripples. It would be impossible to manage her ripples if he didn't know how the future should unfold.

So where did that knowledge come from? Well, if the Theomach is a master of time, he either knows the future, or he comes from the future himself and thus knows the past. It's virtually the same thing: he knows how it's supposed to happen. And this "how it's supposed to happen" includes the version of how it was going to happen anyway without any disruptions to the flow of time (a la Linden, for example). However, there is a big difference between these two alternatives: since the future is never set, "how it is supposed to happen" can ONLY be a perspective from someone who comes from the future.

So now we come to where Relayer is right:

But if the Theomach is "protecting history" then doesn't that imply that this history already existed? In other words, Berek *already did* the things he's supposed to have done, *without* the assistance of the Theomach. This time, yes he's getting help, but it's only to make sure the ripples don't happen.

Just as there was a "correct" version that would have happened without Linden's interference (and Theo's subsequent course corrections), there must have been a "correct" version that would have happened without the Theomach's interference--unless you suppose that his foreknowledge included his own involvement. But if it included his own involvement, he wouldn't have needed to know the "correct" version, because he would have done those actions anyway (since they were the "correct actions" which were inevitable). He could have just done it right to begin with, and thus there would have been no need to have someone at Berek's side who could make time course corrections (which seems too convenient in retrospect, especially since Berek did end up needing someone at his side who could make time course corrections . . . I'll get back to that).

So this, I believe is why Seppi is right (besides being an obvious Rush fan--I love 2112, btw!).

First of all, let me back up and say: brilliant! The role of these "ad hoc" Insequent being similar to Linden's own role traveling through time, and the similar "post hoc" justifications for her presence in the past (analogous to the post hoc explanations for the Insequent being in the Chronicles). It's exactly the same, except on a higher level. Donaldson is performing the role of the Insequent here, course correcting for the fact that he has added these characters into the past of his story, just like the Theomach course corrects for Linden. And her foray into the past sets us to accept this, because the logic is the same.

We all started out saying: wait a minute, something is fishy with these Insequent, how they've been inserted into the past as if they were the original causes of seminal events to begin with. But no one is bothered when the same exact thing happens with Linden. Why? Because there is an explanation: she wasn't the original cause. An Insequent just mediated her intrusion.

So if the same exact kind of explanation is applied to the Insequent, all our original objections about them disappear. They inserted themselves into the original course because course corrections were needed--as with Linden.

So there would have to be a need for them to put themselves into the past to make course corrections. And this need wouldn't be limited to caesures, because (for instance) Roger and Jeremiah didn't need a caesure to violate time--and they went back further than caesures affect time. Sure, the Theomach diverted Linden and Roger to his time and place "to serve his purpose," but that wouldn't have been necessary if Roger hadn't violated time in the first place. I don't think it was accidental or merely fortuitous that the Theomach was there to intervene: he was there because Roger went back in time. And he stayed there to correct all the ripples caused by that single intrusion. The Theomach wasn't destined to become the Guardian all along. This is a course correction just like Linden becoming the originator of the Unfettered (if Linden was the source of the Unfettered all along, then there would have been no need to make the course corrections.)

Of course, this means that every other place where they went back in time to insert themselves as "original" causes of events is due to yet more attacks upon time--similar to Roger's intrusion. In fact, I predict that we'll see these attacks as the Last Chronicles finishes up. Every place an Insequent has been inserted into the past narrative, we'll see that event play out as this story unfolds in the next two books. We'll see why it was necessary for the Insequent to insert themselves into the past--and this will explain why it was necessary for Donaldson to insert them into the Last Chronicles. They weren't there all along. Both in terms of Donaldson's inventions, and in terms of the story itself, they're new arrivals. That's why they're such a good idea.

I think they come from the future--the future relative to the time of the Last Chronicles. After all, we've already been seeing them do just this: travel back in time to save the present.

And this all means the "internal consistency" problem Donaldson admitted recently in the GI concerning the Guardian is just misdirection: he doesn't want us to figure this out yet! It's not strictly a lie, because it is a consistency problem . . . in the same way that Linden being the source of the Unfettered and not originally being the source of the Unfettered is a so-called "internal consistency problem." (It isn't really, but that's because we know the explanation of canceling ripples).

This effectively eliminates any possible internal consistency that may creep up, if SRD chooses to utilize it. Donaldson, you are a genius!

[wayfriend]

Just as there was a "correct" version that would have happened without Linden's interference (and Theo's subsequent course corrections), there must have been a "correct" version that would have happened without the Theomach's interference--unless you suppose that his foreknowledge included his own involvement.

Ah! Yes, I get it now. Somewhere there may be a timeline where Berek did it all on his own, as we always imagined he did. ... And I apologize to Relayer for not getting that when he said it.

THERE'S a question! If you're great in a parallel reality, are you still great in this reality?

But I still don't buy that the Insequent are from the future. There's no need. And they don't all time travel. The Mahdoubt is the only confirmed one. The Theomach may time travel, or be able to see the future.

[Aleksandr]

re: The Theomach knew everything that Berek would ever need to know.

Gandalf and Merlin are pretty much in those positions too. Merlin because he lived backward through time (he knew Arthur's future) and Gandalf because he was really a sort of god or angel. That's what the fantasy archtype of Mystic Guide is all about: a being of great power and wisdom (possibly disguised) who explains just enough and maybe works a little magic in tight spot to speed the hero on his way.

Re: need to do. If Berek ever seemed to be diverging from what the Theomach knew of Berek, the Theomach would subtly put Berek back on course, to protect the Arch.

Again, this has to do with the unpleasant paradxoes of time travel and future knowledge. But I do think you are making unwarranted assumptions here. Even Linden only knows a smattering of facts about Berek, why assume the Theomach is gifted with godlike prescience of all possibilities in all things? Maybe he's only truly sensitive to the Staff of Law or the White Gold and anything about the future that does not explicitly involve one of those items is hidden from him. Even the Elohimn have blind spots we know (and more than they are willing to own up to). We just don't know all thatmuich about the Theomach. We may find out-- or we may not. But in the meantime the viewpoint that MsMary, myself and some other readers are holding is not refuted by anything in the text. And for sure I can't see that Berek's choices are really constrained. Or that the Theomach would constrain them: surely he's wise enough to understand the Necessity of Freedom too. He may give advice, but why assume he has Berek under mind-lock and turns him into a puppet the way a Raver would? Also, the Theomach is only going to be present in Berek's life for a short time: he had no effect on Berek's past decisions and he isn't going to be there to control his future decisions after they get to the Isle of the One Tree. It's quite possible that the Council of Lords, etc is still Berek's own idea much later in his life.

Re: The Theomach wasn't destined to become the Guardian all along.

Ak-haru Kenaustin Ardenol (the Theomach we know now) is already the Guardian in the 2nd Chronicles. So he was part of the time line already.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, yeah I know the "from the future" thing is pretty speculative. You're right that it doesn't have to be the case--not even for all the other claims I made to be true. They could be from the LC time (or any time after the 2nd Chrons) and my theories could hold up. The main reason I proposed these theories is because I think you guys are have some good ideas here (amazing job, Seppi!), and I'm bugged by the same problems you noted. I don't like this "parallel reality" idea. But neither do I like the idea of Berek being led by an omniscient guide who diminishes his role to a charismatic puppet.

However, if this wasn't how it "originally" happened and it's only necessary because time has become corrupted, then it's not as much a diminishment of Berek as it is of time. Donaldson is really committing himself to his story here: he's willing to follow the logic of this corruption to the point where it corrupts the authenticity of the back story, too. Seen in that light, Berek's authenticity is a victim as much as the Arch is a victim. Rather than an aging, less popular author pulling a deus ex machina for cheap spectacle, maybe he's taking a daring, logical risk as per the demands of the story.

Or maybe I'm just trying to find a way to hope.

Gandalf and Merlin are pretty much in those positions too. Merlin because he lived backward through time (he knew Arthur's future) and Gandalf because he was really a sort of god or angel.

I don't like this strategy of justifying Donaldson's work by reference to someone else's work. If it's unfair to criticize him because of similarities to Tolkien (the ring, for instance), then it's also unfair to try to justify him with Tolkien. His story has to be judged on its own merits, and be internally consistent and thematically sound.

But while we're at it: Gandalf wasn't omniscient. He made mistakes. He trusted Saruman and nearly got Frodo captured before he ever left the Shire through his inability to see the future and failures of judgment.

. . . why assume the Theomach is gifted with godlike prescience of all possibilities in all things?

Because he'd have to be in order to fix all the problems Linden, Roger, and Jeremiah caused with their presence. Knowing the story of the Unfettered isn't enough. That was just a lucky coincidence. He was certain he could manage the ripples no matter what, or he wouldn't have diverted them there to begin with.

But in the meantime the viewpoint that MsMary, myself and some other readers are holding is not refuted by anything in the text. And for sure I can't see that Berek's choices are really constrained.

While it's true that your position isn't explicitly contradicted by the literal words of the text, I believe the position being espoused here makes more sense from an artistic, aesthetic view. It makes the Insequent a logical necessity, rather than an ad hoc addition.

If Berek's choices aren't constrained, then why is the Theomach there at all? Theo is there to guide Berek on a path that Theo can already see. If Berek chooses to deviate, then the Arch will be destroyed. However, if you say that Berek would have gone on that path to begin with, then there's no point in having the Theomach guide him.

Or that the Theomach would constrain them: surely he's wise enough to understand the Necessity of Freedom too. He may give advice, but why assume he has Berek under mind-lock and turns him into a puppet the way a Raver would?

Because if Berek deviated from the future the Theo can see, then the Arch would break! Again: The Theomach can see the "correct" future--otherwise, he'd be powerless to correct Linden's effects. Therefore, there is only one way the future can end up. Berek is not free to choose a path that goes beyond the Theomach's powers to "course correct." Therefore, either Berek is constrained by Theomach, or the Theomach is so good at correcting any possible path Berek chooses, that his course-correcting powers are God-like. So he's either omniscent, or omnipotent. Either way, Berek is constrained, or the Arch breaks.

Also, the Theomach is only going to be present in Berek's life for a short time: he had no effect on Berek's past decisions and he isn't going to be there to control his future decisions after they get to the Isle of the One Tree. It's quite possible that the Council of Lords, etc is still Berek's own idea much later in his life.

How do you know how long he was in his life? Up till now, we didn't know he was in his life at all. But now suddenly you know how long he's been there? How is that supported in the text?

Ak-haru Kenaustin Ardenol (the Theomach we know now) is already the Guardian in the 2nd Chronicles. So he was part of the time line already.

Could that be the Internal Inconsistency Donaldson was fretting about? Maybe he was bothered by it for more reasons than he listed.

[Relayer]

Ah! Yes, I get it now. Somewhere there may be a timeline where Berek did it all on his own, as we always imagined he did. ... And I apologize to Relayer for not getting that when he said it.

THERE'S a question! If you're great in a parallel reality, are you still great in this reality?

But I still don't buy that the Insequent are from the future. There's no need. And they don't all time travel. The Mahdoubt is the only confirmed one. The Theomach may time travel, or be able to see the future.

WF, no need to apologize. I always find your posts to be well-expressed and thought-provoking. I just happened to disagree with this one And actually, my only point of dissent is that it really doesn't tarnish my image of Berek.

I'm tending to agree w/ you about the Insequent. It seems they're more a product of the Arch or Timewarden protecting Time. Although of the 3 we've met, one does time-travel, and one can step between moments. Beyond that we don't know what Theo can do. Unfortunately this theory does nothing to explain what the heck the Harrow is doing.

I also like the way Malik described their being 'inserted' into events, though I don't think I agree that they come from the future. Especially because I suspect there isn't a future ... Either way, I do trust Donaldson knows what he's doing and there is a story-driven reason for all of this, and not just some ad hoc addition for the heck of it.

[Bran Pendragon]

Malik makes an interesting point about the "inconsistency" of the Guardian of the One Tree. Maybe they are messing with history.

I kind of like the explanation for time-travel paradox issues in Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising sequence - that is that it is impossible to create a paradox. Your present time has already factored in all time travel to your past that will ever occur, and anything anyone does with time travel in that "past" will only 'fulfill' the history that had already occurred. That is, no matter what your intent and actions when travelling in the past, all you'll ever achieve is to assist in bringing about the very same 'present' from which you originated.

As I said, I like the elegence of that solution, but arguing against that being the case in TCTC is the Theomach's concern that Linden or Roger or the croyel might do something that breaks the Arch of Time.