What's a Bane?

[Attest]

Like I said, the title LFB can mean anything you want it to mean. The title itself was chosen for its power to sell more books.

Well, here's the thing.
SRD clearly has a very liberal idea of interpretation, as far as he cares, we can make up our own minds.
However, unless I'm mistaken, the goal here is to find out what Lester meant when he titled the book.

Your argument - that the Illearth Stone did not belong to LF in that book so it could not be considered his bane - is contradicted by your own argument that TC is shown to be LF's bane in further novels

I get the feeling you don't really understand.
First of all, that isn't my only argument so I get the feeling you're just cherry-picking the arguments you think are easier to rebut. Even if you do want to play it like that your methods are still incorrect.

You're confusing the timing here. There are two things you need to look at. When something is named/becomes a bane, and when something fulfils its status as a bane.
To use another example, think of it like a future contract. It is written at one date, and it will be executed at another.
Covenant was named/became Lord Foul's Bane in the same book (from then on it was his destiny to beat Foul), Foul's words can easily and correctly be abridged as such.
He fulfils his role in The Power That Preserves.
To use the example, in our imaginary contract, in Lord Foul's Bane Covenant is written into a contract to be a bane and in The Power That Preserves he executes said contract.

The Illearth Stone only becomes Lord Foul's after the book, and it likewise executes its roles in the subsequent novels.
It is only Post LFB that the Illearth Stone is written into a contract.

Another issue arises when you consider that Covenant and the Illearth Stone are two different types of bane.
Covenant is destined to defeat Foul, the Illearth Stone is an item that inflict suffering.

But, as I said, even assuming the above wasn't true. Your theory is still flimsy. The Illearth Stone is too insignificant a plot point to be considered a contender for the title.

, and you even cite the Second Chronicles ("The fact that Covenant beat -twice- Foul"), books which were not even dreamed up at the time. The Illearth Stone was also LF's bane in further novels.

Explained above.
Moreover I added in the second part because it proves Covenant is still fulfilling his role as Lord Foul's Bane, as he seems destined to.

There is no answer to the riddle of the title, and I have offered none.

That is an outright lie. A solid untruth, are we not arguing for the interpretation of the title? Are you not offering the theory that the Illearth Stone is the named "Lord Foul's Bane"?
Merely because you stand on shakier ground does not allow you leeway to pretend otherwise.
Moreover, aren't you still wrong? Isn't the problem that there are too many answers that people see as potentially for some people to decide on a definite one?

It means what you want it to mean, and there are no reasonable arguments to support either side without lapsing into contradiction.

So, you admit you have no reasonable argument?
That is, "no arguments you want to hear and acknowledge as valid"
There is no contradiction in the idea that Covenant is Lord Foul's Bane, an idea which does have a "reasonable argument." If there is any problem, it is merely that I'm not patient or empathetic enough to convince you, but idea is valid.

The issue here is that an idea is suggested that is solid. You suggest an idea that is far less substantial and then claim both are not reasonable.

This topic was answered sufficiently as soon as Wayfriend posted Lord Foul's passage. You just fail to admit it as such.

But I am admittedly tired of this, you're quite clearly not going to change your mind.

On a final note, do excuse any perceived harshness in my answers.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

You did not understand my reasoning from before where I have only pointed to your contradiction and not offered an answer. Your own theory of contracts can be applied against you. TC was contracted to be LF's bane, but this contract wasn't fulfilled until after LFB; likewise, LF contracted with Drool to obtain for him the Illearth stone, even though LF did not obtain the stone until after LFB. Due to the contract, LF could easily have considered the stone to belong to him, thus it was Lord Foul's bane. On the basis of contracts, either argument is perfectly sound.

My only mistake was in saying that this is a contradiction. But at the time I couldn't think of the right word. In fact, it is a paradox. This means that both arguments are true at the same time and in the same respect. In other words, I have not disagreed with your solution, only with your methodology.

For an alternate argument, the stone was placed there by LF at the Earth's creation. So it could easily be considered property of his which was lost. LF then contracted with Drool to find and recover his bane, knowing full well that the possession of such power would destroy Drool eventually, thus releasing the bane's possession to LF.

After offering the previous argument, I wrote, "There is no answer to the riddle of the title, and I have offered none. It means what you want it to mean, and there are no reasonable arguments to support either side without lapsing into contradiction." I should have written that it is a paradox. But that is my answer to the problem. And any time I seem to offer a solution, it has only been to offer another possibility and not an absolute.

It only takes one alternate solution to contradict an absolute, only one exception to a rule to contradict a rule. That is the only contradiction there.

I have not contradicted any reasonable arguments by claiming them to be wrong, only wrong-headed upon finding that an exception to them dispels the absoluteness of the arguments. This reduces all such arguments to speculation.

The next question is this: If SRD originally titled the book Lord Foul's Ritual (or Foul's Ritual), what does the word "Ritual" supposedly refer to?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I checked back in the thread to see if my statement that I have offered no solution is an "outright lie." So here is my first post in this thread:

The title Lord Foul's Bane is a double entendre. You cannot know from the first book that it refers to TC, white gold, or to LF's lusting after the white gold. So the title can also refer to the Illearth Stone which is explicitly called a "bane," one of the many banes of the Earth placed there by LF at its creation.

After this, I only made efforts to dispel the idea that there is a solution by showing that there are alternatives which are equally as plausible. I even quoted extensively from LFB to show that the word "bane" can indicate many other things nobody thought of, such as the RoD or Drool.

Here's a clue that TC could also be LF's bane: in the song of the white gold wielder sung at the end of TPTP, TC is referred to as "wicked's bane."

"Hail, Unbeliever! Keeper and Covenant, Unoathed truth and wicked's bane, Ur-Lord Illender, Prover of Life: Hail! Covenant!
Dour-handed wild magic wielder, Ur-Earth white gold's servant and Lord- Yours is the power that preserves.
Sing out, people of the Land-
Raise obeisance!
Hold honor and glory high to the end of days:
Keep clean the truth that was won!
Hail, Unbeliever!
Covenant!
Hail!"

So you see, there is no single answer.

[Attest]

My my, arguing with you is so boring. How old are you?

You did not understand my reasoning from before where I have only pointed to your contradiction and not offered an answer. Your own theory of contracts can be applied against you.

No, no it can't.

TC was contracted to be LF's bane, but this contract wasn't fulfilled until after LFB;

Which I said.

likewise, LF contracted with Drool to obtain for him the Illearth stone, even though LF did not obtain the stone until after LFB. Due to the contract, LF could easily have considered the stone to belong to him, thus it was Lord Foul's bane. On the basis of contracts, either argument is perfectly sound.

...and here is where you are wrong.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Illearth Stone was unearthed and taken up by Drool and he clearly had no intention of giving it to Foul. At this stage it was Drool's. The fact that Foul took it up on Drool's death proves it wasn't his before hand.
I already admitted that Drool was something of a cats-paw for Foul, but nonetheless the Illearth Stone wasn't Foul's and couldn't be considered so, except by a generous stretch of the definition of "his", until Drool was dead and he'd claimed it -after Lord Foul's Bane-

For an alternate argument, the stone was placed there by LF at the Earth's creation. So it could easily be considered property of his which was lost. LF then contracted with Drool to find and recover his bane, knowing full well that the possession of such power would destroy Drool eventually, thus releasing the bane's possession to LF.

This is a stronger argument, however it still fails under the plot importance term. And it can still be argued that in a technical/literal interpretation it still wasn't Lord Foul's until post LFB (whether he intended to get it back or not is irrelevant)
In Lord Foul's Bane, the Illearth Stone is not a big enough presence to warrant a title.

After offering the previous argument, I wrote, "There is no answer to the riddle of the title, and I have offered none. It means what you want it to mean, and there are no reasonable arguments to support either side without lapsing into contradiction." I should have written that it is a paradox. But that is my answer to the problem. And any time I seem to offer a solution, it has only been to offer another possibility and not an absolute.

Here's the problem though, merely because there are several potential titles, it doesn't mean they are all equal.

For example, if you put them side by side.

Covenant is Lord Foul's Bane
The book is about him, exclusively I might add (plot importance)
Foul says as much.
Covenant eventually beats Foul, causing his "death" and fulfilling his role.

These are all strong arguments and any one can be used.

Alternately, The Illearth Stone is Lord Foul's Bane.
The Stone is unearthed and first appears in the book, it is used by Drool.
The Stone eventually becomes Lord Foul's, which he uses to blight and corrupt the Land.

Alternately, while admittedly valid points, these arguments aren't nearly as strong.
Of course, there are other options. But this is merely an example.

It only takes one alternate solution to contradict an absolute, only one exception to a rule to contradict a rule. That is the only contradiction there.

False. Otherwise terms like "the exception to the rule" would never have been invented. Indeed, a rule can have many exceptions and still be valid, take our laws for instance.

I have not contradicted any reasonable arguments by claiming them to be wrong, only wrong-headed upon finding that an exception to them dispels the absoluteness of the arguments. This reduces all such arguments to speculation.

And here's another flaw, you jump straight from something being an absolute to it being mere speculation, when in fact there are multiple levels that require considering.

I checked back in the thread to see if my statement that I have offered no solution is an "outright lie." So here is my first post in this thread:

The title Lord Foul's Bane is a double entendre. You cannot know from the first book that it refers to TC, white gold, or to LF's lusting after the white gold. So the title can also refer to the Illearth Stone which is explicitly called a "bane," one of the many banes of the Earth placed there by LF at its creation.

After this, I only made efforts to dispel the idea that there is a solution by showing that there are alternatives which are equally as plausible. I even quoted extensively from LFB to show that the word "bane" can indicate many other things nobody thought of, such as the RoD or Drool.

Irrelevant.

You said

There is no answer to the riddle of the title, and I have offered none.

Which is not true, you've offered several ideas.

Here's a clue that TC could also be LF's bane: in the song of the white gold wielder sung at the end of TPTP, TC is referred to as "wicked's bane."

"Hail, Unbeliever! Keeper and Covenant, Unoathed truth and wicked's bane, Ur-Lord Illender, Prover of Life: Hail! Covenant!
Dour-handed wild magic wielder, Ur-Earth white gold's servant and Lord- Yours is the power that preserves.
Sing out, people of the Land-
Raise obeisance!
Hold honor and glory high to the end of days:
Keep clean the truth that was won!
Hail, Unbeliever!
Covenant!
Hail!"

I don't understand. We've already established Covenant is Lord Foul's Bane, in the sense of something that will cause his death or suffering, this much fact, he meets the definition.
What we were arguing is whether he is the titular Lord Foul's Bane.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

There is no answer to that. Every alleged answer requires selective reasoning. Or let's say that every answer is the correct one. I have offered ideas, not answers. But they are not just ideas, they are designed to show the "one answer" dogmatists that there are other possibilities and therefore it can't be pinned down to one idea. Every response of yours above boils down to nitpicking. And there is no such thing as an irrelevant answer where all are equally valid because nobody can prove otherwise. The Illearth Stone is big enough to warrant a place in the title if you consider the evidence I have already given in the form of quotes from LFB. This was in response to someone who stated that the stone played no role, which is easily shown to be untrue. Now someone is claiming that it plays too minor a role to be identified as part of the book's title. So first its presence was denied, and now it is being minimized. But to what end? To pin the title down to one answer: that TC is Foul's bane, when I have thoroughly shown that there is no single answer which can be proven.

Besides playing a role in the book, and not a minor one at all, Drool's finding of the stone sets the stage for the next two books. So it is indeed of great importance. If the lords in LFB had found Drool before the Cavewights managed to unearth the stone, things would have proceeded very differently. That is not to prove that the titular bane is just the stone itself, only that its role in the book was not of minimal importance in creating the title.

[Attest]

There is no answer to that. Every alleged answer requires selective reasoning. Or let's say that every answer is the correct one. I have offered ideas, not answers. But they are not just ideas, they are designed to show the "one answer" dogmatists that there are other possibilities and therefore it can't be pinned down to one idea. Every response of yours above boils down to nitpicking. And there is no such thing as an irrelevant answer where all are equally valid because nobody can prove otherwise. The Illearth Stone is big enough to warrant a place in the title if you consider the evidence I have already given in the form of quotes from LFB. This was in response to someone who stated that the stone played no role, which is easily shown to be untrue. Now someone is claiming that it plays too minor a role to be identified as part of the book's title. So first its presence was denied, and now it is being minimized. But to what end? To pin the title down to one answer: that TC is Foul's bane, when I have thoroughly shown that there is no single answer which can be proven.

You have done no such thing, but supply insubstantial and inconclusive reasoning.
All you've done is attempt, unsuccessfully, to muddy the waters by advocating a weak case simply to try and cast doubt on, what seems to me, an obvious fact.
I admit, there are other possible answers, but they are all too weak to warrant equal time in debate and thus preclude a conclusion.

Besides playing a role in the book, and not a minor one at all,

It is a minor role, mutate a few things, mess with some Ur-Viles?
Please.
In The Illearth War and The Power That Preserves, it has a major role and indeed the title of the second book is named accordingly.
It wasn't even given the focus of a section of the book, like the Staff of Law was.

Drool's finding of the stone sets the stage for the next two books. So it is indeed of great importance. If the lords in LFB had found Drool before the Cavewights managed to unearth the stone, things would have proceeded very differently. That is not to prove that the titular bane is just the stone itself, only that its role in the book was not of minimal importance in creating the title.

Plot importance, not just importance. They are very different things, the presence of the Illearth Stone was important, but it was of very little plot importance in Lord Foul's Bane.
As in the case of many trilogies/series, it was merely some groundwork laid during the first book that played a larger part in subsequent work.


But I'm done arguing with you. At least in this matter. You're clearly not going to change your mind and, surprise surprise, you're not going to change mine, not with the way you've been arguing.

Let other people come and make up their mind based on the evidence we've both put forth, I'm confidant they'll make the right decision.

Toodles Worm.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

There is no evidence to help decide what the titular bane really is. But there is ample evidence to cast doubt on any particular answer to the riddle.

[Rocksister]

[quote

But I'm done arguing with you. At least in this matter. You're clearly not going to change your mind and, surprise surprise, you're not going to change mine, not with the way you've been arguing.

Let other people come and make up their mind based on the evidence we've both put forth, I'm confidant they'll make the right decision.

Toodles Worm.

Welcome to the watch, Attest, and I see you've met the Worm. Just keep moving. I didn't look up bane; I always took it to mean just something bad that you don't wanna have against you. "Bane of my existence" would mean, to me, a lingering annoying thing that just won't go away until it rips me of my last thread of sanity. So, children........

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

"Bane of my existence" would mean, to me, a lingering annoying thing that just won't go away until it rips me of my last thread of sanity. So, children........

[wayfriend]

Covenant is Lord Foul's Bane
The book is about him, exclusively I might add (plot importance)
Foul says as much.
Covenant eventually beats Foul, causing his "death" and fulfilling his role.

I for one agree with you.

Add to your list: When someone says "Joe's Bane", they almost always mean "The thing that will be the end of Joe", not "The thing that Joe uses to cause the end of someone else".

For example, "Durin's Bane" is the Balrog. Not because the Balrog belonged to Durin. But because it caused the end of Durin.

"Wolf's Bane" is used to repel werewolves. It's not used by werewolves.

The Do Not Call List is called "the telemarketer's bane".

Etc.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

I wonder what Santa's Bane would be....

[thewormoftheworld'send]

[quote

But I'm done arguing with you. At least in this matter. You're clearly not going to change your mind and, surprise surprise, you're not going to change mine, not with the way you've been arguing.

Let other people come and make up their mind based on the evidence we've both put forth, I'm confidant they'll make the right decision.

Toodles Worm.

Welcome to the watch, Attest, and I see you've met the Worm. Just keep moving.

From the GI:

Tim Harris: In response to:
> I can't speak for Lester; and he isn't here to
> defend himself. But if I had to guess.... He
> might say that the "bane" in "Lord Foul's Bane"
> has a double meaning. It refers to both the curse
> or doom which LF intends for the Land and the
> curse or doom which Covenant represents for LF.

Interesting! I'd always assumed "Lord Foul's Bane" was the Illearth Stone he was seeking and used to poison the Land throughout the first Chronicles.


The advantage of Lester del Rey's title is that it has so many possible meanings.

(09/17/2008)

I haven't said anything different from SRD in his GI on the same topic. And yet, somehow, I am wrong, and SRD is right.

How fun it is to bring out the double-standards in people!