FR First Impression

[ellll]

Yeah....,

I been kinda worried about that...and I tried Nom once before....he never showed....

ellll

[MsMary]

My daughter Foamy (Foamfollower 1013) is reading FR. It has been so hard for me not to comment about her comments and questions about the book as she reads!

She totally hates spoilers and gets annoyed if I even give the hint of what sounds to her like a possible spoiler. I have had to keep my lips buttoned about the book, for the most part.

So when she talked about TC's appearance in the beginning, and kept making remarks about his typical and atypical behavior, it was all I could do not to ask, "Aren't you the teensiest bit suspicious about how TC came back from the dead and about his behavior?"

When she got past the scene of the Earthblood, she remarked that she was never totally convinced that that was the real TC, in case I was wondering.

Um, yes, I was.

Just now she remarked, "You know what this book is missing?" I asked, "What?" And she said, "Giants."

Can'ttalk can'ttalk can'ttalk can'ttalk
Need strength to keep mouth shut
No remarks

[Ur Dead]

Tell her you read the book and if she keeps asking question instead of remarking about it. You will spill the beans..

Tell her after she's finished... you'll be happpy to discuss the finer points.

[ellll]

Keep this goin...this is where it's at...

ellll

[aliantha]

My daughter Foamy (Foamfollower 1013) is reading FR. It has been so hard for me not to comment about her comments and questions about the book as she reads!

She totally hates spoilers and gets annoyed if I even give the hint of what sounds to her like a possible spoiler. I have had to keep my lips buttoned about the book, for the most part.

So when she talked about TC's appearance in the beginning, and kept making remarks about his typical and atypical behavior, it was all I could do not to ask, "Aren't you the teensiest bit suspicious about how TC came back from the dead and about his behavior?"

When she got past the scene of the Earthblood, she remarked that she was never totally convinced that that was the real TC, in case I was wondering.

Um, yes, I was.

Just now she remarked, "You know what this book is missing?" I asked, "What?" And she said, "Giants."

Can'ttalk can'ttalk can'ttalk can'ttalk
Need strength to keep mouth shut
No remarks

Take a deep, cleansing breath, MsMary...

[Relayer]

Just now she remarked, "You know what this book is missing?" I asked, "What?" And she said, "Giants."

<grin>

This reminds me of when I read the 1st Chrons. My buddies had already read it and every night they'd ask me "how far did you read?" and then we'd discuss it. They were really good at not giving anything away (and really good at pointing out details I missed), but sometimes they'd just say "dude. you don't even know..."

[MsMary]

Yeah, I do that. That way I know what parts of the book it is okay to discuss.

She got to the Giants. She doesn't remember remarking to me that what the book was missing was Giants.

[Seareach]

I think her obsession with finding or saving Jeremiah is to the detriment of the Land.

This is just the lesson of the girl and the rattlesnake again. The Land cannot be truly damaged when it's defenders stand up for what they truly believe in. And the defenders of the Land are falling into despite's snares when they do not. Covenant eventually realized he should have given Seadreamer his caamora, etc.

Consider what would happen to Linden if she didn't try to save her son. You only need look to Joan for the answer. Linden would get eaten away by self doubt and self recrimination. She'd eventually despise herself. In the end, she'd be an enemy of the land, harming it in a misguided effort to expiate herself.

[Zarathustra]

I don't think the only two alternatives are: 1) look for Jeremiah this way, or 2) not look for him at all.

It is the means by which she searches for him that's the problem. In a recent answer to Wayfriend's question on the GI, SRD says that the ends don't justify the means, and therefore the means can't be criticized in terms of the ends. But we're not done yet. If we criticize her means, it's not because they have produced an evil end. It's because her means in themselves seem to be bad, in themselves. The fact that she said her son outweighed the fate of worlds, and that she seems willing to risk anything to save Jeremiah, makes her seem oblivious to the consequences and potential ruin. We keep seeing: "good cannot be accomplished by evil means," and I think this is her central crisis. She's doing stuff she knows she shouldn't do, but doesn't care. She is refusing to be swayed by the possibility of bad consequences because she thinks that her goal is pure enough to overcome "evil" means.

But if Jeremiah is the end, isn't she using the ends to justify her means? If going after Jeremiah is worth it *no matter what,* (or saving the snakebite girl *no matter what*), isn't Donaldson already using the ends to justify the means? Seems like one big contradiction, to me. It's just that he thinks he has found the "ultimate" end: it's for the children. Uhg.

[Zarathustra]

To further complicate (and contradict) the matter, Donaldson recently answered this question:

Sunbaneglasses: The dangers of unearned knowledge seems to be a theme in The Chronicles. That said,I am not so sure that Linden has earned all the power and lore that she is using? An example is The Theomach just casually giving Linden all seven words of power. Will Linden's lack of knowledge and understanding of the powers that she is wielding play an important part in the Last Chronicles?

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think I’m very good at discussing the themes of a story while I’m actually working on that story. But it certainly seems to me that the ending of “Fatal Revenant” is a vivid demonstration of the dangers of unearned knowledge. Had Linden *understood* the possible implications of her actions….

(03/23/2008)

Doesn't that sound exactly like the point people here (like Alberich) have been saying?!? So she is making mistakes, despite Donaldson claiming this in the GI:

From my perspective, none of my characters has *ever* made a mistake. How can I say that? 1) Because if they didn't do what they do, there wouldn't be a story. And 2) because if they didn't do what they do, they wouldn't be who they are--which would mean that *I*, rather than my characters, have screwed up.

If you want to argue that an action can be called a mistake when it produces a terrible outcome, then simple logic requires you to argue also that the ends justify the means. But if people like Covenant and Linden believed that the ends justify the means, you could have kissed the Land goodby a long time ago.

So how can she simultaneously not be making mistakes, yet still doing dangerous things due to unearned knowledge?

[wayfriend]

I don't think the only two alternatives are: 1) look for Jeremiah this way, or 2) not look for him at all.

It is the means by which she searches for him that's the problem.[/.quote]
Well, as long as there is a problem *somewhere*. I can't keep track of how many things were "the" problem.

But, just as failing to look for Jeremiah would lead to inevitable ruin, so to would half-heartedly looking for Jeremiah. Instead of self-hate arising from abandoning her son, it would arise from the inevitable self-doubt. She would ask, could Jeremiah have been saved if I had only risked more, tried harder.

So that doesn't lead to any kind of better answer for Linden.

The fact that she said her son outweighed the fate of worlds, and that she seems willing to risk anything to save Jeremiah, makes her seem oblivious to the consequences and potential ruin.

Okay. Now we're back to the risk double-standard: We hate Linden, so she's always wrong for taking risks. See above.

But if Jeremiah is the end, isn't she using the ends to justify her means?

I cannot see how. She's not doing *anything* to obtain Jeremiah. In fact, despite everyone's protestations, she's been working towards saving the Land and many other problems as well as save Jeremiah, constantly and consistently. So I see no evil means which require justification.

[ Yes, you'll insert here all the dangerous things she did. Risks, yeah, got it. Save her son, yeah, got it. Ping pong ball in a dryer, yeah, got it. ]

At some point, it could come down to Save Jeremiah or Save the Land. And she would choose Jeremiah. I fail to see how judgement of means applies to that situation.

[Zarathustra]

Well, as long as there is a problem *somewhere*.

Writers usually call that, "conflict." I don't see why it's unreasonable to point it out.

The fact that she said her son outweighed the fate of worlds, and that she seems willing to risk anything to save Jeremiah, makes her seem oblivious to the consequences and potential ruin.

Okay. Now we're back to the risk double-standard: We hate Linden, so she's always wrong for taking risks. See above.

When did I say I hate Linden? Noting a character's flaws or poor choices isn't a product of hate. It's just literary analysis. It would be silly to make this personal against an imaginary person. Besides, I like Linden.

I fail to see how judgement of means applies to that situation.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Donaldson keeps throwing in that phrase about "Good cannot be accomplished by evil means" purely by accident. Maybe it's a whim. He can't possibly have an actual reason for repeating this phrase over and over.

If Linden isn't using poor judgment, then why did Donaldson say in the GI ". . . the ending of “Fatal Revenant” is a vivid demonstration of the dangers of unearned knowledge. Had Linden *understood* the possible implications of her actions…. " It seems to me that he conveyed--both in the text and in the GI--that there is inherent danger in what she's doing, both in terms of ends and means.

Malik23 wrote:
But if Jeremiah is the end, isn't she using the ends to justify her means?

I cannot see how. She's not doing *anything* to obtain Jeremiah.

Um, isn't that exactly what you said would cause her to, "get eaten away by self doubt and self recrimination"?? Yes, you said:

Consider what would happen to Linden if she didn't try to save her son. You only need look to Joan for the answer. Linden would get eaten away by self doubt and self recrimination.She'd eventually despise herself. In the end, she'd be an enemy of the land, harming it in a misguided effort to expiate herself.

So how can she simultaneously be doing nothing to obtain Jeremiah, and yet not trying to save her son would drive her to become an enemy of the Land?

[wayfriend]

Well, as long as there is a problem *somewhere*.

Writers usually call that, "conflict." I don't see why it's unreasonable to point it out.

I was pointing out how Linden's detractors need to find a problem with something she does. I was not commenting on the story as presented by the author. This would have been apparent if you had quoted the text I was replying to.

I fail to see how judgement of means applies to that situation.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Donaldson keeps throwing in that phrase about "Good cannot be accomplished by evil means" purely by accident. Maybe it's a whim. He can't possibly have an actual reason for repeating this phrase over and over.

I'll presume sarcasm here, although maybe it's not intended.

I was talking about a situation where Linden is forced to choose between Saving Jeremiah and Saving the Land. She picks Jeremiah. I do not see how "ends justify means" applies to Linden in this moral dilemma. Lord Foul is responsible for setting it up to work that way, not Linden. Linden is merely choosing. So Linden is not performing an action which can be considered a "means" that can then be judged either way. Not when it comes to that choice.

If Linden isn't using poor judgment, then why did Donaldson say in the GI ". . . the ending of “Fatal Revenant” is a vivid demonstration of the dangers of unearned knowledge. Had Linden *understood* the possible implications of her actions…. " It seems to me that he conveyed--both in the text and in the GI--that there is inherent danger in what she's doing, both in terms of ends and means.

You would be unfair yourself, indeed, if you do not also ask, why didn't he go on to say that she used poor judgement? Because that's not what he wants to say. Dangerous, yes. But he also said, in another answer to another GI question, that she made the best choice available to her. So let's not cherrypick the GI. The danger is not the result of poor judgement. There is a danger of unintended consequences, but that can work for you as well as against you, as when it is something absolutely necessary but which you would fear to do if you had full knowledge of it.

But if Jeremiah is the end, isn't she using the ends to justify her means?

I cannot see how. She's not doing *anything* to obtain Jeremiah.

Um, isn't that exactly what you said would cause her to, "get eaten away by self doubt and self recrimination"??

(Malik, if this is an argument to prove that you can intentionally misinterpret what I write, please consider yourself the winner and walk away as happy as you can make yourself.)

I am sure that you know I did not mean to imply "Linden has done nothing to obtain Jeremiah". I meant "Linden has not done *just* anything." In other words, she hasn't done evil things trying to save Jeremiah, she has limited herself to good things only. Try as you might, I phrased that in a perfectly valid way, and the next sentence afterward, which is a paraphrase of exactly what I was saying, bears that out.

Anyway ... there's nothing about any means Linden has used which you could actually point to and say "that's evil". As, I've noticed, you haven't, nor have others. When asked what means she's used that could be considered evil, the inevitable answer is something which she's done that's risky rather than evil.

Doesn't that sound exactly like the point people here (like Alberich) have been saying?!?

No, it doesn't. I am sure that he left the sentence unfinished precisely to fool the rash of judgement, and so build suspense for his own story. Why else, otherwise?

So how can she simultaneously not be making mistakes, yet still doing dangerous things due to unearned knowledge?

She may be undertaking things which seem too risky for her to choose to do willingly if she had full knowledge.

This has been a theme of the Second Chronicles all along. That if mortals knew too much they would be too scared to do what needed to be done. I don't have a quote, but Covenant himself said that the Dead can't tell us everything that they knew because it would be too frightening. Covenant did not tell Linden he would give the ring to Foul because if she knew that she would try to stop him. etc.

[ellll]

Like I say, Great stuff...I stand in awe...

ellll

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, I did actually misunderstand you. I'd prefer you just rub my nose in this mistake, than suggest that I'm actually being argumentative on purpose. I didn't see the silent "just" in your sentence. Or the one after it. I honestly thought you contradicted yourself, because it made sense to me to suggest that she hasn't done anything to save Jeremiah . . . because she hasn't. She got the Staff. She brought back Covenant. How those two things help her achieve any goal--much less that specific one--Donaldson hasn't revealed. She is certainly no closer to this goal.

Given that she has no plan whatsoever (or if she has one, SRD is intentionally keeping us in the dark), the risks she is taking can only be described as "rash." She has no idea how the Staff will help her, or what she will use it for along the way, but she just has a hunch that it might come in handy, and she can't think of anything else to do, so why not risk the Arch? You don't see a hint of rashness in that kind of reasoning?

I don't understand the problem you have with anyone criticizing Linden's actions. If Donaldson didn't want to give this impression, why did he write it this way? Sure, even her "mistakes" might turn out to have very positive effects later. In fact, I expect that to happen. That's the way Donaldson works. Just look at the end of WGW. But if Donaldson didn't want us to get this impression of her being rash, then the way he built up that expectation in the text was pure misdirection. That seems like a cheap trick, to me. If there's really no risk to her actions [edit: risk of being the wrong actions, not merely dangerous actions in themselves], then all the tension fizzles out of the story. Are we supposed to assume that she is super human an incapable of making mistakes? That's not even a character worth reading about. I think the fact that she can mess up, or make decisions that don't go as she expects, is part of what makes her interesting.

Again, if Donaldson doesn't want us to think about the issue of whether her actions, choices, and means are good or evil--or whether that question itself needs to be reevaluated in itself, then why does he keep repeating the question? You accuse Linden detractors of trying to find problems with Linden, when all we're doing is having the discussion the author intended by bringing these issues up in the first place. If Linden can do no wrong, then these questions are moot.

I was talking about a situation where Linden is forced to choose between Saving Jeremiah and Saving the Land. She picks Jeremiah. I do not see how "ends justify means" applies to Linden in this moral dilemma. Lord Foul is responsible for setting it up to work that way, not Linden. Linden is merely choosing. So Linden is not performing an action which can be considered a "means" that can then be judged either way. Not when it comes to that choice.

Well, she hasn't made that choice yet, and at this point it is pure speculation about whether she will have to make it (though you're probably right). For all we know, she could do both. So at this point, I don't see the problem with trying to evaluate her actions.

If Donaldson doesn't want us to evaluate his characters in terms of the consequences of their actions, that's his problem. He can't control how I evaluate his characters. Personally, I think he's wrong. But it hasn't been the first time. (I don't think Angus redeemed himself, either.)

The danger is not the result of poor judgement. There is a danger of unintended consequences, but that can work for you as well as against you, as when it is something absolutely necessary but which you would fear to do if you had full knowledge of it.

Isn't it poor judgment to ignore the danger of unintended consequences? And since this danger increases with Law-defying actions which require the most powerful weapons on the planet, she should know that unintended consequences rise exponentially. I don't think the, "woops, I didn't mean to" defense helps here. People don't get that kind of forgiveness in real life. For instance, no one intends for there to be collateral damage in a war. Yet, this doesn't stop anyone from judging Bush for the consequences of the War in Iraq. In fact, he has even been called a greater terrorist than Bin Laden, when his intentions were merely to protect us and stop a dictator. I don't think people who spout this kind of philosophy actually believe it. Well, maybe they do when they're talking about their own mistakes.

[wayfriend]

I've really got nothing more add to this thread that's actually valuable to anyone who doesn't care about your and my spat.

As for "I don't understand the problem you have with anyone criticizing Linden's actions."...

I don't have a problem with anyone criticizing Linden's actions. However, there have been a plethora of undeserved crticisms, and I decided someone needs to address them. Perhaps that's not very fun for everyone in the end -- fair enough.

I say undeserved because it's either not based on the text, or its a marked double standard, or its pure spite. For example

Given that she has no plan whatsoever (or if she has one, SRD is intentionally keeping us in the dark), the risks she is taking can only be described as "rash."

(Risk again.) I can think of at least five other heroes in the story to whom that same criticism that could be applied without even thinking hard. (OK: Prothall, Covenant, Mhoram, Foamfollower, Hamako.) And yet those characters don't draw anything close to the same ire from any readers -- rather they are admired for their strength. They are not rash, they are bold. So there's incontrovertably a double-standard being applied.

Why?

What is the underlying cause of what can only be called prejudice?

I'd like to figure that out, eventually. I have some theories.

In the mean time past discussions have allowed me to develop solid responses to undeserved criticisms such as (a) she doesn't care about the Land; (b) she's single-minded; (c) trying to save Jeremiah is a bad idea; (d) she has no plan; (e) she takes too many risks; (f) she isn't doing anything; (g) resurrecting Covenant is a bad idea; (h) she's self-centered; (i) she's arrogant; (j) she's dodging responsibility. But there's many more. (Yes, many of these criticisms contradict each other.)

Unfortunately, Linden's naysayers merely reformulate their argument to pick a different criticism (as if they are all the same; as if it doesn't matter which as long as they have a criticism) and jump on that one. Case in point: this thread.

Despite even Steven R. Donaldson himself saying "My personal reaction is, how could Linden do anything else?" (11/10/2007). And "How do you propose to demonstrate that ANY of Linden's decisions in 'The Last Chronicles' has been wrong?" (2/17/2008)

[shadowbinding shoe]

Interesting discussion (shouting match?)

Anyway wayfriend, I think Linden is going on the wrong path right now in gathering to herself all these powers. You said in previous posts that she needs all the powers she can get (staff, ring, krill) to achieve her purposes and defeat her enemies.

But that's the wrong way to go about it. She wasn't defeated in Melekurion skyweir and her other battles because she didn't have enough power. She was defeated because she didn't know how to use the powers she already had efficiently. Take for example her battle with the skurj. She was recklessly pouring immense amounts of power into those beasts when we soon learn that they can be defeated with a mere judicious stab to the heart or some water.

The Harrow, Esmer, Roger, the croyel, I don't believe any of them is as powerful as her staff of Law. I think it's Linden herself who says somewhere that the power of the staff is only as limited as the mind that wields it (if it's lawful). The others just know what they're doing with their power.

Instead of looking for more and more new weapons she should seek to perfect her control over the ones she possesses. Donaldson said she is the staff of law. But instead of seeking to understand and realize herself she's on a rampage to drown herself in power she never stops to master.

Now I know you're going to raise a choking smog of Kevin's dirt. But this is just another example of what she's not doing but should have. We've seen her cleanse individuals of it. It should be manageable to cleanse the air of it in a similar way. It may take some time, I'll grant you. Maybe she'll have problems handling more than a few miles at first but so what? And if she needs to be outside it to overcome it she could go up the mountains near Revelstone.

That would have been a good test drive for her power. But she never stops to consider it.

[wayfriend]

I agree with your points about mastery but does she have the luxury of the time it would take when Lord Foul has her son?

Maybe she can heal the Land of Kevin's Dirt. Or a part of it. And maybe she indeed will ... she's only JUST figured out what Kevin's Dirt does, so I think it's too soon to criticise her for what she does with that information.

[shadowbinding shoe]

I agree with your points about mastery but does she have the luxury of the time it would take when Lord Foul has her son?

Aren't you repeatedly saying she wants to save the Land as well? Is a week off to clear the smog that big a sacrifice? It's obvious Foul won't kill Jeremiah until Linden reaches him. Taking a few days off won't change anything about him.

Maybe she can heal the Land of Kevin's Dirt. Or a part of it. And maybe she indeed will ... she's only JUST figured out what Kevin's Dirt does, so I think it's too soon to criticise her for what she does with that information.

Shouldn't it have been healed just because it blinds people to the world they're living in? What she just figured out is that it also interferes with her use of power, not that it is a wrong that should be healed. If you think she should undo it just because it gets in her way that would make her very selfish.

[wayfriend]

I agree with your points about mastery but does she have the luxury of the time it would take when Lord Foul has her son?

Aren't you repeatedly saying she wants to save the Land as well? Is a week off to clear the smog that big a sacrifice? It's obvious Foul won't kill Jeremiah until Linden reaches him. Taking a few days off won't change anything about him.

Sorry, you took my response to one question and replied to it as it it was a response to a different question.

Maybe she can heal the Land of Kevin's Dirt. Or a part of it. And maybe she indeed will ... she's only JUST figured out what Kevin's Dirt does, so I think it's too soon to criticise her for what she does with that information.

Shouldn't it have been healed just because it blinds people to the world they're living in? What she just figured out is that it also interferes with her use of power, not that it is a wrong that should be healed. If you think she should undo it just because it gets in her way that would make her very selfish.

Sorry, you're attributing an opinion to me that I don't have.