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

[wayfriend]

Going backwards:

Bran, one thing we can be sure about is that Donaldson's view of time travel isn't the same as Cooper's. If no paradoxes can be created, then there can never be a threat to the Arch of Time. And ... probably worse, for Donaldson ... free will would be an illusion.

Malik and Relayer, I continue to be someone stuck, in that I keep coming back to the following statement.

I am torn on the introduction of The Insequent. Truly, they are *cool* -- come on, they're like magical X-Men with the delightfully atypical SRD slant -- but MAN, the Mahdoubt's brush-off regarding their lack of presence in previous TC adventures doesn't ring well. Will the 3rd and 4th books excuse their lack of presence in previous Chronicles more fully, or are they simply fascinating new inventions and I should get the heck over it? (Consistency; hobgoblin; lesser minds; yeah yeah.)

• The Insequent. There's an underlying issue here. In the approximately 20 years that I *wasn't* working on "Covenant," my good ol' subconscious had plenty of time to come up with new ideas, some of which are a d*mn sight *better* than the ones I had while I was working on "The Second Chronicles." Inevitably this has introduced--and will no doubt continue to introduce--some internal inconsistencies. Well, I'll do everything I can to minimize those inconsistencies. But I'm not going to turn my back on good ideas just because I failed to plan for them perfectly 25+ years ago. We're all just going to have to live with the occasional snag.
  
  (11/28/2007)

Now, being a self-proclaimed connoisseur of the Gradual Interview, I would say that Donaldson would not make an admission as he did above if he was holding onto a secret plan to reveal that the Insequent could be explained away nicely. Rather, he would say something along the lines of withholding judgement until the whole story is revealed.

Assuredly that's not proof of anything.

Donaldson could be manipulating our expectations to increase the impact of the big reveal. Kind of like the guy who tells his wife that he didn't get her anything nice for her birthday, because he bought her diamonds.

But, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the Insequent are just what they say they are, and that their lack of appearance in the earlier Chronicles will never be satisfactorilly handled.

[Zarathustra]

Now, being a self-proclaimed connoisseur of the Gradual Interview, I would say that Donaldson would not make an admission as he did above if he was holding onto a secret plan to reveal that the Insequent could be explained away nicely. Rather, he would say something along the lines of withholding judgement until the whole story is revealed.

I agree that Donaldson wouldn't make such a bold assertion if he didn't mean it, but why assume that means he doesn't have secret plans up his sleeve? That's his trademark! Also, I don't think we're suggesting "explaining away" as much as "seamlessly integrating."

So far, the Insequent aren't a "d*mn sight *better* than the ones I had while I was working on The Second Chronicles." Nothing about them is better than the 2nd Chonricles yet--especially when you factor in their annoying, inexplicable appearance-out-of-nowhere . . . which Donaldson himself acknowledges in your quote. So he's got something to reveal which is going to make them a lot cooler, and something (I hope) which renders their sudden appearance as not so annoying.

But, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the Insequent are just what they say they are, and that their lack of appearance in the earlier Chronicles will never be satisfactorilly handled.

That may turn out to be so. But while we're waiting for him to transform them into something "a damn sight *better*" we can always hope. Given that this Chronicles is fundamentally about corruption of time, and the necessary risks which must be taken to correct such corruption, I can't believe it's pure coincidence that he decided to "corrupt" his own backstory with new elements . . . which also conspicuously correct corruptions of time. It's way too convenient as a narrative device, and it connects too closely to the themes to be accidental.

The Theomach wasn't the only one who corrected or otherwise aided Linden's foray into the past. Mahdoubt did, too, by helping her back to the present.

Surely if Roger would try one attempt on the past, he'll try another (kind of like the Terminator repeatedly trying to get John Connor--woops, now I'm justifying my theories by reference to other works ).

[Aleksandr]

Re: But while we're at it: Gandalf wasn't omniscient.

I see no evidence that the Theomach or the other Insequent are omniscent either. Might they not be as capable of error as the Elohim? The Harrow certainly is or he'd have the Staff and Ring now. Ditto the Vizard, who is (apparently) dead as a result of his own error. And the Theomach fell under Brinn's hand. No, these are not all-powerful, all-knowing beings. (And unlike the Elohim they aren't running around bedazzling everyone else by claiming to be all-powerful and all-knowing)

This discussion is going no where I'm afraid. I simply see these points as being a lot of guess work and supposition that is unsupported by the text, and I disagree with it. My final word is that I don't see Berek as diminished in the slightest-- perhaps I never had the uber-exalted view of him that some posters here did, so having him show up as flesh and blood, warts and all, and taking advice from someone wiser, does not trouble me. I do dislike the time travel (and foreknowledge) paradoxes SRD has introduced (deliberately or not) into the story. And in regards to another Insequent I dislike the deus ex machina quality of the Harrow ridding Revelstone of the Demondim-- that felt like a cheat. I'm also annoyed by the inconsistency in the matter of the One Tree's Guardian-- OK, if Findail was meant to be lying all along, but if not, it's a flaw. Beyond that, the Insequent do not trouble me. I actually liked the Mahdoubt-- she's the only truly vivid new character we've gotten. For the rest I am willing to wait and see where the story goes.

[golondi]

No matter how well SRD handles integrating the Insequent, I think it's still bad form for an author to introduce such powerful, story-altering characters this late in a tale.

This might make for another topic - but I think that even worse than introducing the Insequent is introducing Jeremiah with the "God"-like ability to make doors to paradise or even to extinguish the entire Elohim. I'll be really disappointed if the final demise for the Despiser comes from a doorway...

Reminds me of the Dark Tower books by Stephen King - after reading 6 long books - and waiting for the final confrontation...

Spoiler

he introduces some random kid with the ability to draw the final bad guy and then erase him out of existence... Nothing the Gunslinger did in the previous 6 books mattered one bit when all he needed in the final analysis was to happen upon this kid.

Mod edit: I just spoilered that in case there's people here who haven't read the Dark Tower books yet. Cheers. Sea Oh and somewhere here there's a discussion about that (the Dark Tower books...SRD's response to them).

[Relayer]

Welcome golondi, and Be True!

I simply see these points as being a lot of guess work and supposition

Assuredly. But what else have we to do?

[Seppi2112]

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.

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.

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.

You said it better than I did apparently, lol. We don't have any reason to think that the Insequent can actually move through time. None of them do so except the Mahdoubt, but she isn't HERSELF moving through time as much as restoring Linden to her own (and thus sealing the temporal discontinuity Roger created by leaving her there).

Every time a discontinuity is created, an Insequent eliminates it. Theomach handles Roger with Berek; Mahdoubt handles Linden in Garroting Deep; Harrow handles the Demondim outside Revelstone. All they do is fix time distortions (with the exception of the Vizard, but we don't know enough about him yet to say one way or the other what was happening with him and the Haruchai).

If the Insequent are NOT a race of beings (they make no mention of a city or a home that I can recall, only a kinship between themselves) but rather the corporeal manifestations of Thomas Covenant as Timewarden (a role Roger specifically stated allowed him to be in multiple places at once), then sudden EVERYTHING WORKS.

The Insequent weren't an afterthought; they weren't manipulating the Land secretly for the last 20,000 years; Findail wasn't lying about the Guardian.

Instead, SRD is just one step ahead of us... again. Bastard...

(And yes Malik, 2112 is in fact the shit... as are so many of their songs )

[wayfriend]

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

I had missed this bit, but when Seppi quoted it I noticed it and had to say something.

I think it's uncontrovertable that the Theomach's plan all along was to join with Berek, go to the One Tree, and become the Guardian.

(1) Because the Theomach's real name was Kenaustin Ardenol, a name that was attached to the Guardian before Linden or Roger ever backtravelled.

(2) The Vizard's tale to the Haruchai clearly states that the Theomach was known as Kenaustin Ardenol, and he became the Guardian.

Both of these things were known and important, and could not have been changed with a Theomachian course correction without troubles for the Arch.

All that changed for the Theomach, from Roger and Linden's actions, is that he altered their path so that they could join him.

[Zarathustra]

I see no evidence that the Theomach or the other Insequent are omniscent either.

But that's exactly my point. By Seppi's theory, they don't have to be omniscient. They simply come from the future (at least, the future from the perspective of the backstory, Berek's time, etc.). For a being from the future to know his own past doesn't take omniscience; it just takes study (which apparently the Insequent are all about). Anybody can study history. But a being from the past knowing the future is--if not omniscient--knowing waaay too much for an acceptable story, especially if that "unearned" knowledge is used to guide the Father of Lords and thus the entire history of the Land as we know it.

I'm saying that your interpretation makes them too powerful and ad hoc, while our (mostly Seppi's but I'm adopting it) interpretation explains their presence and purpose in a more palatable fashion, without resorting to god-like knowledge of the future.

This discussion is going no where I'm afraid. I simply see these points as being a lot of guess work and supposition that is unsupported by the text, and I disagree with it.

Well, I see it surging forwards by leaps and bounds, but since you don't accept the theory, I can see how you feel it is going nowhere. But remember, your position is a theory, too. It's just that your theory requires taking the story at face value (a dangerous strategy when dealing with Donaldson stories), whereas this new theory connects the dots in an extremely perceptive, inventive manner much more fitting to the subversive genius we've come to expect from the author. I think it's brilliant, really. And in it's own way, it IS supported by the text: the fact that there were no Insequent in the first 2 Chronicles. The fact that they are new inventions inserted into the back story might actually be evidence that they are new arrivals inserting themselves into the backstory!

[Zarathustra]

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

I had missed this bit, but when Seppi quoted it I noticed it and had to say something.

I think it's uncontrovertable that the Theomach's plan all along was to join with Berek, go to the One Tree, and become the Guardian.

(1) Because the Theomach's real name was Kenaustin Ardenol, a name that was attached to the Guardian before Linden or Roger ever backtravelled.

(2) The Vizard's tale to the Haruchai clearly states that the Theomach was known as Kenaustin Ardenol, and he became the Guardian.

Both of these things were known and important, and could not have been changed with a Theomachian course correction without troubles for the Arch.

All that changed for the Theomach, from Roger and Linden's actions, is that he altered their path so that they could join him.

Well, we know that Donaldson has admitted a contradiction over this very issue that was already embedded in the story before the LC had even begun. So it's going to be difficult to sort all this out at this stage, as to which parts we can say are absolutely eliminated as potential interpretations based on an event that Donaldson admits is internally inconsistent. But on the other hand, maybe you're right, and we simply have to take the fact that Donaldson wants us to accept his revisionism at face value, with all the flaws and diminishment this revisionism entails.

[wayfriend]

None of the inconsistencies we've discussed touch on whether or not the Theomach becomes an Guardian, or on whether or not he set out to battle the Guardian, AFAIK.

[Zarathustra]

What was the original contradiction again? That Findail said there was no Guardian, but the Haruchai said there was?

If that's true, then perhaps the Elohim preserve the "original" timeline interpretation of events (because they stand "outside" of time, in a sense) while the Haruchai are reflecting the altered timeline because the Insequent intervened directly in their history.

But that is a rationalization to account for the II, which Donaldson said he wouldn't do in the GI. And it supposes that the time corrections were happening (had happened?) even before Roger started going back in time or before the caesures. So maybe you're right: Theomach has always been Berek's guide and teacher, and always the Guardian. Man, I just think that sucks.

[Unfettered One]

The original contradiction was that Findail said the One Tree was accessible in Berek's time because the way it was approached didn't involve combat.

Stave mentions that there was an Elohim who guarded the One Tree in Berek's time.

[Relayer]

Every time a discontinuity is created, an Insequent eliminates it. Theomach handles Roger with Berek; Mahdoubt handles Linden in Garroting Deep; Harrow handles the Demondim outside Revelstone. All they do is fix time distortions (with the exception of the Vizard, but we don't know enough about him yet to say one way or the other what was happening with him and the Haruchai).

If the Insequent are NOT a race of beings (they make no mention of a city or a home that I can recall, only a kinship between themselves) but rather the corporeal manifestations of Thomas Covenant as Timewarden (a role Roger specifically stated allowed him to be in multiple places at once), then sudden EVERYTHING WORKS.

The Insequent weren't an afterthought; they weren't manipulating the Land secretly for the last 20,000 years; Findail wasn't lying about the Guardian.

Instead, SRD is just one step ahead of us... again. Bastard...

This really makes sense. And I forgot that the Harrow corrected the time inconsistency of the Demondim...

I think one of them (Theo?) does say something like they come from "a land so distant that it would mean nothing to say it's name" -- but that could easily be a diversion. They might well come from another 'dimension' such as the Arch is.

If they are in fact manifestations of TC/Arch, what happens to them now that TC is "alive"?? Are they still free to go about their activities, or will this disable them in some way?

[iQuestor]

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.

Berek may have been helped and aided by the Theomach, but he was much more than a nice guy. He was a hero and a founding lord in his own right. WF, you take that back!!

[Bran Pendragon]

Bran, one thing we can be sure about is that Donaldson's view of time travel isn't the same as Cooper's. If no paradoxes can be created, then there can never be a threat to the Arch of Time. And ... probably worse, for Donaldson ... free will would be an illusion.

Yeah, obviously its a different conception of time. For what its worth, I think there is, in the Cooper type conception of time, a paradox in that things are destined, however, that set destiny only comes about through all the actors exercising their free will. The two ideas are contradictory, but I think nevertheless they are simultaneously true.

Further, in the conception I was saying I liked the idea of, I should stress that it's the past leading up to the present that cannot be changed. The future would be "unset" and still able to be altered.

On the Berek/Theomach dilemma, I think there are a couple of things that argue against your rather extreme interpretation of the Theomach's role. First, the Theomach seems conscious of not diverting Berek's actions more than is necessary to achieve his aim - in his comments when he reveals the Seven Words, he states that it will not cause any disruption to reveal them to Berek (and Linden) in this time and place. That suggests to me that he is aware that if he interferes with Berek's actions too much, he'll imperil the Arch. From that, you could interpret that he won't intervene with Berek more than is absolutely necessary to achieve his objective, and otherwise let Berek work things out himself. It's a question of interpretation, I grant you, but that 'minimal help' interpretation seems to me to be as valid as the 'puppet master' one.

Secondly, and I apologise for referencing another work, but I do so purely because it is a neat expression of the point I'm trying to say I believe applies in SRD's work - as is pointed out in The Matrix, there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking it. Knowing what you have to do doesn't necessarily make doing it less heroic.

[Zarathustra]

On the Berek/Theomach dilemma, I think there are a couple of things that argue against your rather extreme interpretation of the Theomach's role.

Is the "extreme" interpretation Seppi's theory? I'll assume that's what you mean.

First, the Theomach seems conscious of not diverting Berek's actions more than is necessary to achieve his aim - in his comments when he reveals the Seven Words, he states that it will not cause any disruption to reveal them to Berek (and Linden) in this time and place. That suggests to me that he is aware that if he interferes with Berek's actions too much, he'll imperil the Arch. From that, you could interpret that he won't intervene with Berek more than is absolutely necessary to achieve his objective, and otherwise let Berek work things out himself. It's a question of interpretation, I grant you, but that 'minimal help' interpretation seems to me to be as valid as the 'puppet master' one.

But if the Theomach was the person who "originally" gave Berek the Seven Words, then why would he worry about it at all? It couldn't have possibly caused any damage to the Arch if the Theomach was the source of Berek's knowledge of the Seven Words. I don't remember the text in detail, but if what you describe is true, then this implies that Berek "originally" learned the Seven Words in a way other than the Theomach giving them to him. And that supports Seppi's theory that the Theomach is a course-correcting entity, and that there was an original timeline before his interference.

[Seppi2112]

The original contradiction was that Findail said the One Tree was accessible in Berek's time because the way it was approached didn't involve combat.

Stave mentions that there was an Elohim who guarded the One Tree in Berek's time.

I don't think that's the contradiction... all SRD specifically said is that there's an II regarding the guardian having been Elohim but we don't really know what that meant.

What I'm willing to bet the issue is, is that the Elohim should be outside of time (by their very nature, and the fact that Esmer is apparently unhindered by it), and so the insertion of the Theomach into the guardianship should have been known by them beforehand in some way.

Everything else (the lack of combat, etc) can be justified going forward (maybe Theo beat him at checkers a la Bill and Ted vs. Death) but the real issue revolves around the Elohim's knowledge of the guardian in some way.

It couldn't have possibly caused any damage to the Arch if the Theomach was the source of Berek's knowledge of the Seven Words.

EXACTLY!! SRD is very aware of the laws of Thermodynamics... information/knowledge can NOT come from nowhere. Theomach is FIXING discrepancies, not creating them.

[Bran Pendragon]

Is the "extreme" interpretation Seppi's theory? I'll assume that's what you mean.

By extreme, I meant the interpretation that Berek became a mere puppet to the Theomach. And by saying extreme, I'm not making it a personal criticism of those who believe that - its a valid viewpoint that they're entitled to. I'm just pointing out that it is a very absolutist way of viewing the situation.

But if the Theomach was the person who "originally" gave Berek the Seven Words, then why would he worry about it at all? It couldn't have possibly caused any damage to the Arch if the Theomach was the source of Berek's knowledge of the Seven Words. I don't remember the text in detail, but if what you describe is true, then this implies that Berek "originally" learned the Seven Words in a way other than the Theomach giving them to him. And that supports Seppi's theory that the Theomach is a course-correcting entity, and that there was an original timeline before his interference.

I don't think its clear whether Berek *always* learnt (as in learnt in a way that stayed with him) the Seven Words from the Theomach or not. That gets to the very crux of the issue of paradox. I thought that what was clear was that the Theomach was saying that revealing that knowledge at that time would not imperil the Arch and hence he could do so. That struck me as suggesting that he's very aware that any action on his part must be carefully considered as he could otherwise damage/destroy the Arch. And therefore, it could be validly interpreted that he'll directly intervene as little as possible, and only on things that make no difference to what was already going to happen. All of which means that there's a hell of a lot of room for Berek to still be an amazing heroic figure in his own right.

[wayfriend]

I don't think its clear whether Berek *always* learnt (as in learnt in a way that stayed with him) the Seven Words from the Theomach or not.

Indeed.

History, as it is conceived in the Final C's, is something that is laid down in layers. There is an original series of events. Then time travel allows those events to be modified -- within tight limits. So it's clear that there is a first version of a timeline, and then subsequent versions. (What happens to earlier versions? Unknown.)

So... if the Theomach has knowledge of the future, then it must be true that his knowledge comes from an earlier version of events than the one he is currently participating in. If he travelled in from the future, then that's clearly true. If he got information from the future, but never was there himself, then it's still just as true.

So... we have the Haruchai's tale of the Vizard, and how he revealed the existance of the Theomach and Kenausten Ardenol. According to Brinn, this has shaped the life of every Haruchai ever. No one can mess with the history of this w/o breaking the Arch. Therefore, it has happened in every version of the timeline, including the first one. Which means that Berek had an Insequent mentor in all time lines.

But ... the first version of any timeline has not been modified by time travel. In the very first incarnation of Berek's timeline, he may have had an Insequent mentor, but the mentor could not have had any knowledge of the future.

That seems like a paradox to me.

[Zarathustra]

I thought that what was clear was that the Theomach was saying that revealing that knowledge at that time would not imperil the Arch and hence he could do so.

And if that's true, then Seppi's theory has to be true (at least the part about the Insequent being course-correcting entities, and not originally part of history; I'm not so sure about the idea of them being part of TC's mind).

If Theomach's teachings present any threat to the Arch, no matter how small or improbable, then this can only come from Theomach's teachings diverging from the original timeline. Which implies that there was a timeline in which his teachings didn't guide Berek, because otherwise, there would be no threat whatsoever in the Theomach teaching him; that would simply be the way it always happened. He wouldn't have to worry about it, and wouldn't have to even consider, "This is safe to teach him." Everything would be safe to teach him, if he were always the source of that knowledge anyway.

I think we can conclude from this that his mere presence is a divergence from the way it happened originally--if your characterization of that part of the text is right. I don't have the book handy to check.

Even if the Theomach was always with Berek originally--he didn't come from the future, but instead merely has knowledge of the future--this would also make the issue of how much he could reveal to Berek irrelevant. Since he'd know the outcomes of his own actions, he couldn't possibly make a mistake. He would know that he was the source of Berek's knowledge, and therefore every bit of info he gave him would be safe . . . unless Theo is diverging from his own known future. Why would he do that? I suppose Linden's presence could cause him to diverge from his own known future actions (e.g. teaching Berek the words now, rather than later). And maybe that's all he was talking about. But I still don't see why it would be necessary for him to worry about imparting knowledge that originally came from himself anyway--unless it didn't originally come from himself.