Transcendental idealism and the Land

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

Ever since I got to know transcendental idealism pretty decently (as a metaphysical outlook in the Critique of Pure Reason and as an ethical theory by way of the doctrine of the categorical imperative) I've been struck by how it resonates with some of the metaphysics and ethics of the Land's universe. The constant references to self-respect, for example (or I should say to self-contempt as the original form of corruption), the description of "the Law" as sacred, the virtue of self-command, etc., and the equation of causality with the order of time, easily reflect basic tenets of TI, so to speak. Granted, it's not a massive leap from the concept of time to the concept of cause and effect, and maybe Donaldson is just clear on his own about the role of self-esteem in the struggle between good and evil, so it's possible that the similarities are incidental.

But with TI in mind, some rough ideas about the nature of some of the different powers at work in the Land:

Wild magic: power without conditioned causal structure (i.e. not subject to Law). In other words, transcendental freedom (but even without a law it gives to itself?). (Therefore "the necessity of freedom," too.)

Earthpower: energy that powers the engine of natural causation.

Despite: transcendental freedom that violates itself by negating its autonomy (and, in the end, the agency of others). It manifests itself, of course, in the form of possession, an attack on autonomy par excellence--whether by Ravers, croyel (maybe personifications of Despite, like the Elohim are personifications of Earthpower--hence the exceptional antagonism of the Elohim for the croyel?), or whoever.

But now where does the one word of truth fit in?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Everybody has their own interpretation of Kant's Idealism. But to me, the Land is basically not Kantian at all. It is more Jungian. Kantianism was made for the metaphysics of the real world not for a dream world. The metaphysics of the Land is based on the Creator's idea which is based on someone's dream in the 'real' world.

Anybody wielding wild magic in the Land has the potential for godhood. This makes the Land the product of an intellectual, and not sensible, intuition, in the Kantian sense. The Land is not phenomenal, it is noumenal. Anybody can potentially be a god over their own dreams. The metaphysics of the Land is just the opposite of Kant's.

"One word of truth"? I don't think anybody has even given that one a mundane, much less philosophical, explanation. In Kantianism, the "one word" of truth could be the Categorical Imperative or the Holy Will (a will which has transcended goodness and attained holiness, or which is All Good, omni-benevolent).

The problem is, the "one word" of the Chrons could be either good or evil, "truth or treachery."

"Despite" or corruption is an all-consuming hatred. Possession could be considered an aspect of that since it is morally evil.

I don't see transcendental freedom as being lawless, it is given its own law in the form of the Categorical Imperative. While it is absolute, it can obviously be denied, thus the presence of evil in the world. But this evil is not a product of the will, it is only a product of its weakness, its inability to overcome natural forces ("inclinations") in men (addictions, etc.) which compel them to evil acts. But this inability can be overcome.

The issue of self-respect (and self-contempt) has its origin in SRD's Humanist philosophy. He even calls himself a Humanist-Existentialist.

Humanism and Existentialism are products of Kantianism, at least indirectly, due to the fact that every modern philosophy is a Kantian product at least indirectly.

Kant was not the first philosopher to link time, space and causality. Consider Leibniz. He was, however, the first philosopher to link time and space to causality through the Doctrine of Transcendental Imagination, a synthesis which is a product of the method of Transcendental Reflection. But you will find no such ideas in SRD's works.

[Sharguild]

Oh please. Jungian? To which episode would you possibly attribute the actions as "we must understand ourselves in order to understand others".
Not a damn one of them did, including the Lords. And certainly not Covenant.

I'm not letting lord Emmanuel off either, "better through inaction than reposing at the feet of others?" Not likely.
One thing above all each and every character provided the storyline was the fact they ACTED on their beliefs. They were FIGHTERS.

TWWE; you also read far more into the original post (OP) than I suggest was desired. MS has one point in favour of his arguement, Causality is within our venue to control. Covenant forgot that, or did not know it.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Oh please. Jungian? To which episode would you possibly attribute the actions as "we must understand ourselves in order to understand others".
Not a damn one of them did, including the Lords. And certainly not Covenant.

I'm not letting lord Emmanuel off either, "better through inaction than reposing at the feet of others?" Not likely.
One thing above all each and every character provided the storyline was the fact they ACTED on their beliefs. They were FIGHTERS.

TWWE; you also read far more into the original post (OP) than I suggest was desired. MS has one point in favour of his arguement, Causality is within our venue to control. Covenant forgot that, or did not know it.

Have you read any of SRD's GI? Variations on the word "archetype" are used 26 times there. Some of them come from reader questions. But here he writes: "Jungian and Platonic conceptions of archetypes are not irrelevant to my designs. I *have* put a certain amount of study into such subjects."

Perhaps therefore you are simply picking and choosing from amongst an assortment of Jungian ideas in order to find an exception to a rule.
SRD's focus on dreams isn't necessarily Jungian; the concept of unconscious archetypes, however, is definitely Jungian. Dreams along with their unconscious archetypes play major roles in Jungian psychology. But I have never claimed that the Chrons were purely Jungian, they are the product of a variety of influences.

But don't think you're alone in ignoring the GI, GI-evasion has been a useful method for attacking my posts. For example, I have often been set upon here for stating the idea that whether or not the Land is real/unreal is irrelevant, even though SRD stated the same idea on his GI, 'the important thing about the whole "Is the Land real/unreal?" question is that it doesn't really matter.' I have also been attacked by a Covenant fan for using the word "spiritual" with regard to the Chrons, even though SRD stated on his GI, "Covenant is on a spiritual journey--and it ain't over yet." I don't see why I have to bow down to someone's personal atheist belief, and yet SRD gets a bye. I guess being a famous author helps.

I don't know what you mean by "causality is within our venue of control." And at any rate, that isn't a Kantian concept, where the context of the OP's post was Kantian. So it appears that you are the one reading too much into his post. The only place causality is within our venue of control is in dreams, and dreams are our own creations. But the Kantian focus is not on dreams, it is on the empirical or phenomenal. If Kant held that phenomena are the result of the synthesis of empirical imagination, rather than transcendental imagination, you would be correct. But in that case, Kantianism would reduce to solipsism.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Earthpower: energy that powers the engine of natural causation.

The very idea violates your own linking of the Chrons to Kantianism, in which Time, and not some magical Earthpower, is linked to causation.

From the mythos of the Land: Earthpower is a magic emanating from the Worm which sleeps at the core of the Earth, it doesn't come from the Worm itself so much as it comes from the myriad stars it devoured before falling asleep.

If you want, I can always search the Chrons for the appropriate cite.

The only "energy" that could power the engine of natural causation would be the Arch of Time. SRD says as much on the GI where he links the Arch of Time to causality and sequence. This I believe was also stated in the Chrons as part of the Land's mythological basis.

The very idea that Time is an Arch, that it is something real outside the conscious self (although not physically real), is as un-Kantian as it gets. It flies completely in the face of the Transcendental Aesthetic. It is more Newtonian in a sense, the kind of idea that the Aesthetic was designed to attack.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

Radical evil is (in Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone) identified as the consequence of free choice, so it's not clear that evil is, by the lights of TI, not a product of the will. I know in Die Metaphysik der Sitten a difference is spelled out between free will and free choice, but I'm not sure I understand the difference too well... But I guess if Donaldson's referenced his ethics explicitly, and not (explicitly or to his knowledge) as read off the doctrine of the categorical imperative, then, yeah.

Alright, free will needs a law of its own, but it doesn't have to give itself one, just if it doesn't, it becomes corrupted by laws that impose themselves on it instead. So I don't think that transcendental freedom automatically has its own law, but if it does give itself a law, it must be the categorical imperative. Granted. Otherwise, it's lawless and, if my interpretation of TCoTC were valid, accordingly the terrible threat to the stability of existence that it is in that series. But again I guess my interpretation isn't evidently valid.

To keep pressing my points, though: regardless of whether wild magic is like intellectual intuition, this doesn't mean that the Land's metaphysics aren't able to be described in the language of TI. (Doesn't wild magic as intellectual intuition count as describing the Land's metaphysicals in terms of TI?) Moreover, the Land as purely noumenal can't possibly be true inasmuch as this would leave it without a spatiotemporal causal structure, a structure it noticeably has.

... Now I'm guessing, "One thing above all each and every character provided the storyline was the fact they ACTED on their beliefs. They were FIGHTERS," and its immediate context are meant (indirectly) to characterize the doctrine of the categorical imperative as somehow advocating passivity. I don't think this is fair, though. Surely a theory that directs us to constructing a global system in which deception, aggression, and retribution have come to an end, universal friendship being the standard instead, can't have us just sit around, doing nothing, not fighting (against the depravity in ourselves if not in others).

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I'm sure you could describe the Land in terms of Transcendental Idealism - in it's "positive" thus noumenal employment, that is, un-Critically. If you consider the Land to be real, then it is as un-Kantian as it gets. But then, I am not one to interpret Kant's Idealism as a form of solipsism. That is why I started out my first response to you stating that everybody approaches the topic with their own interpretation. If Kantianism is a form of solipsism, then I am all for your project. And I have really granted you your point, as I said, but only in noumenal terms. The Land, considered as real, could only be the product of an intellectual intuition.

However, that being said, SRD stated in his GI that the question of the Land's reality/unreality is irrelevant. And so the very question misses the lesson of the First Chronicles: it is possible to care about the Land and disbelieve in the Land's reality at the same time.

If however I were to take a philosophical approach to the topic, it would be exactly as SRD stated in the quote I gave you from the GI: Platonic and Jungian.

The instability of the Land you mentioned is not a product of any immorality, but of entropy. That is, a natural tendency toward dissolution inherent to all being. Everything dies. Whether that is some kind of archetype for immorality is another question. And in the long run, the fact that everything dies is an affirmation of life, since things must die in order to make room for new life. Death is a necessary part of life, it makes future generations possible. Even Lord Kevin and Kelenbhrabanal were affirming life through their acts of self-destruction, self-sacrifice is a major theme throughout the Chrons. This affirmation of life could be considered the moral thrust of the Chrons.

This brings us back to your Kantian idea of radical evil. Although the RoD could definitely be considered a great evil, Kevin's intent was not evil. You could say that the RoD was the result of a misinterpretation of the CI. The will acts through reason, where reason does not always operate correctly. Sometimes it operates under extreme duress, as in Kevin's case.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

... Time, and not some magical Earthpower, is linked to causation... The only "energy" that could power the engine of natural causation would be the Arch of Time. ... The very idea that Time is an Arch, that it is something real outside the conscious self (although not physically real), is as un-Kantian as it gets. It flies completely in the face of the Transcendental Aesthetic. It is more Newtonian in a sense, the kind of idea that the Aesthetic was designed to attack.

Going by TI, time alone is not enough for causation. My "engine of natural causation" turn of phrase was maybe not the best, but it also maybe could be adapted to this consideration. I don't know. Surely the rampaging malevolence of the Sunbane as a corruption of Earthpower instead of Time points to Earthpower (when pure) as part of the causal order of the Land's world. I mean, in transforming the Sunbane back into pure Earthpower, Linden invokes her knowledge of meteorology and the rest (right?). (I don't know what to say to the Worm-as-origin story about Earthpower...)

On the last point, I'm not sure how to get from "Time is an Arch" to "Time is real outside of self-consciousness." Plus time is, according to TI, empirically real, so (I'll think this over more later, when I get a hold of a copy of the Critique of Pure Reason again)... The situation is more complicated than your wording suggests.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

I don't think TI is solipsistic. I wouldn't tend to think first of the Ritual of Desecration when applying the concept of radical evil to TCoTC. I didn't know Donaldson explicitly cites Plato and Jung as philosophical inspiration for his work (that's what you're saying, yeah?). The real world would be "a product of intellectual intuition" too if it were created by divine forces, regardless of its relation to us as an object of empirical consciousness. (The critical philosophy's theory of knowledge doesn't rule this out, just our knowing whether it's true.) I don't think you quite got my reference to instability (I was talking about how wild magic can generate stuff like caesures, not... entropy...).

[thewormoftheworld'send]

... Time, and not some magical Earthpower, is linked to causation... The only "energy" that could power the engine of natural causation would be the Arch of Time. ... The very idea that Time is an Arch, that it is something real outside the conscious self (although not physically real), is as un-Kantian as it gets. It flies completely in the face of the Transcendental Aesthetic. It is more Newtonian in a sense, the kind of idea that the Aesthetic was designed to attack.

Going by TI, time alone is not enough for causation. My "engine of natural causation" turn of phrase was maybe not the best, but it also maybe could be adapted to this consideration. I don't know.

I certainly agree that time alone is not enough to account for causation. The link Kant discovered is the Doctrine of Transcendental Imagination, as I said. That is the synthesizing element which makes objective experience possible.

Time, according to the Aesthetic, is empirically real - yet transcendentally ideal. What this means is that time is not physical, it is not external like the Arch. When considered empirically, time is therefore the real form of inner sensibility. But it remains only a form of sensibility, something internal to our senses. Lacking any content from the senses, time is thus empty, it is "made" real only in the presence of empirical
a posteriori content. Thus time is also transcendentally ideal. Time, standing all alone, is nothing. It only becomes real in the presence of some sensible content; this content is formed in Time but not by Time. Time is thus seen as a container for representations which lends them sequentialism.

In the Land, time is seen as a container of all that is "real" in the Land. It is both a container and a restricter, it restricts everything to that which lies beneath it, just as a bowl both contains and restricts its content.
It is far from being the container of mere representations, that is, mental content, restricting them to sequence (and, of course, along with sequence there is simultaneity, representations occurring at the same time as well as 'alongside' each other in time).

Notice that SRD, who is not a philosopher, omitted the concept of 'simultaneity' which is a necessary companion to 'sequence.'

Fortunately, I noticed this long ago, and I had thought most of this possible "Kant connection" through long before you posted about it.

I had never imagined anybody would come here posting the same general ideas. I guess great minds think alike!!

Surely the rampaging malevolence of the Sunbane as a corruption of Earthpower instead of Time points to Earthpower (when pure) as part of the causal order of the Land's world. I mean, in transforming the Sunbane back into pure Earthpower, Linden invokes her knowledge of meteorology and the rest (right?). (I don't know what to say to the Worm-as-origin story about Earthpower...)

On the last point, I'm not sure how to get from "Time is an Arch" to "Time is real outside of self-consciousness." Plus time is, according to TI, empirically real, so (I'll think this over more later, when I get a hold of a copy of the Critique of Pure Reason again)... The situation is more complicated than your wording suggests.

I don't think LA has any knowledge of meteorology. I think she just acted on whatever schooling she had concerning nature's order. The Sunbane was a violation of the natural order. The sun had a lot to do with it, it is called the Sunbane after all. It's not that the sun itself was affected, by any means, but the rays themselves, normally a source of life, were turned toward corruption, anti-life.

I can easily get from "Time is an Arch" to "Time is real outside of self-consciousness" or self. The Arch of Time is an objective reality foundational to the Land, as objective it exists outside of the consciousness of the Land's inhabitants. (It is an object but not a physical one or even a force such as gravity or electromagnetism.) But for Kant, Time only exists subjectively, that is, in us; it is foundational only to subjective sensibility.

It was Kant's contention that if subjective Time were the foundation of our universe then everything would acquire illusory status. Or, perhaps better, dream-like status, as it is with the Land.

The "situation," as you call it, can get as complicated as you desire this conversation to go, at the forbearance of course of our friendly moderators.

[Vraith]

If however I were to take a philosophical approach to the topic, it would be exactly as SRD stated in the quote I gave you from the GI: Platonic and Jungian.

Good point, but as I recall, he said these must've had some influence, but also [at least as far as Jung is concerned] he specifically said that his archetypes were not Jungian archetypes, but based in fundamentalist christian archetypes.

I never would have thought of the Chron's. in Kantian terms, and you hit on one of the major reasons in your last post, Worm. Time as both empirical and transcendental. But Time is not transcendental in the Land...if anything is transcendental, it's white gold [or at least the wild magic that is triggered/channeled by it] which in itself isn't an 'ordering' force as time is.
For subjective/objective, we end up in a nifty little place. TC, and most every other thing, time is objective [though of course they can only see it from a subjective view] Even if no one was there, things would happen, entropy would exist. Time doesn't merely 'order' how things happens, it forces them to happen.
For the Creator, though [and LF in his 'natural' form] Time is subjective...it only exists where it is made to exist, and only effects the Creator when s/he turns attention to the places where it exists.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I agree with Mighara that one can analyze the Chrons from Kant's perspective, that is, using the Critical method; but I disagree that the Chrons are Kantian in nature. They are Platonic, Existentialistic, Humanistic, and Jungian. And that list may only account for some the philosophical influences or backdrops. Because of the breadth of his works, their religious influences easily span the gap between East-West, mysticism and Christianity.

So far, that response refers only to the first paragraph of your post. I'll get to the rest of it later.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Vraith,

You surely meant to say that wild magic is transcendental, and not white gold, so you corrected yourself. It's obvious from the song of white gold that wild magic is graven in every rock. But what that means exactly is another question. I don't know how to approach the topic of wild magic: is it a substance of some sort? And Kantianism certainly can't speak to this issue. So I prefer to limit it to the original Kantian topic of Time's status in the Land, which you also addressed in your post.

In this regard, you stated that Time is not transcendental in the Land. I respectfully disagree. Time there is not transcendentally ideal, it is however transcendentally real. This means it is also empirically ideal. Therefore the Land's universe is nothing more than a subjective illusion.

And so if someone didn't exist to dream up the illusion, the Land wouldn't exist, just as you said.

When you say that Time 'forces' things to happen, you've confused Time with Law.

I'm sure the inhabitants of the Land believe that if the universe was unpopulated that things would simply keep ticking along as usual. I'm not saying that the Land's existence is dependent on their perceptions of it. But from the perspective of the inhabitants the Land's universe would be ruled by Hume and not by Kant: in other words, they believe in Law but not only are they unable to establish its necessity, it is easy to prove that it is capable of being violated by magic. How can Laws be held apodeictic where there is also magic? They are not necessary, they are contingent Laws. The universe of the Land is ruled by contingency, not necessity.

So the issue with Time's subjectivity, which you mentioned above, relates not to the Land but to the "real" world. Time is subjective only where the Laws which rule the universe are necessary. On the other hand, Time is objective only in cases such as the Land where the Laws which rule the universe are contingent.

This does not mean that subjective Time "only exists where it is made to exist." That would instead be the case if Time were objective, that is, foundational to things-in-themselves, and obviously imputes the existence of a Creator as it is with the Land.

[Vraith]

What fun. I may have to try and find my Kant [it's been 10 years, but I'm sure I at least still have Crit. Pure Reason somewhere]

Vraith,

You surely meant to say that wild magic is transcendental, and not white gold, so you corrected yourself.

Yes, surely I did. (why won't it let me insert a smiley here?)

In this regard, you stated that Time is not transcendental in the Land. I respectfully disagree. Time there is not transcendentally ideal, it is however transcendentally real.

If I read you correctly this is pretty much what I intended.

When you say that Time 'forces' things to happen, you've confused Time with Law.

Not exactly. What I mean is that Law is a necessary result of Time. In different Time spheres, there may be different Law, but there will be Law. Things happen [at least the non-magical ones] according to Law, but because of Time. The kind of Law may be contingent on what is contained within a given universe, but that there is Law is a necessity.

in other words, they believe in Law but not only are they unable to establish its necessity, it is easy to prove that it is capable of being violated by magic. How can Laws be held apodeictic where there is also magic? They are not necessary, they are contingent Laws. The universe of the Land is ruled by contingency, not necessity.

See above, and: Actually, I think this is a central point for the Land. It is an aspect of the essential paradox. Magic is in the air (or ground). But: earthpower is magical only to us, not the Land...its use is within the law..when the user violates the law, the results are warped, healthsense shows the violation, only damage results. And the power available is limited by the user. Even the violations, though, can't make the universe not exist [unless it somehow rouses the Worm?]. It may alter particular laws, but in itself can't destroy Law itself...you need wild magic for that.
Wild magic also exists, in potential. But to access/utilize it requires something from outside as a 'trigger' if nothing else. Once it is triggered, though, the users has to struggle to restrain it, not draw it forth. Every use, not matter the purpose--good or bad--is a violation and danger, and the lesser part of that danger is the violation of law, the greater is that it threatens the source of Law.

This does not mean that subjective Time "only exists where it is made to exist." That would instead be the case if Time were objective, that is, foundational to things-in-themselves, and obviously imputes the existence of a Creator as it is with the Land.

This leads to more paradoxical places. It is obvious that the Creator created time, [or he couldn't have trapped LF in time, because he was already in time] or time isn't actually the nature of LF's cage [contrary to the text]. Is the Creator, in some sense, 'foundational' for Time? Or is time such for the Creator? Or are there, in some odd way, different varieties of time; the Arch defines a prison for LF within larger 'time frame'? [dual meaning intended].

Well, that was a good time.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

What fun. I may have to try and find my Kant [it's been 10 years, but I'm sure I at least still have Crit. Pure Reason somewhere]

Vraith,

You surely meant to say that wild magic is transcendental, and not white gold, so you corrected yourself.

Yes, surely I did. (why won't it let me insert a smiley here?)

In this regard, you stated that Time is not transcendental in the Land. I respectfully disagree. Time there is not transcendentally ideal, it is however transcendentally real.

If I read you correctly this is pretty much what I intended.

When you say that Time 'forces' things to happen, you've confused Time with Law.

Not exactly. What I mean is that Law is a necessary result of Time. In different Time spheres, there may be different Law, but there will be Law. Things happen [at least the non-magical ones] according to Law, but because of Time. The kind of Law may be contingent on what is contained within a given universe, but that there is Law is a necessity.

in other words, they believe in Law but not only are they unable to establish its necessity, it is easy to prove that it is capable of being violated by magic. How can Laws be held apodeictic where there is also magic? They are not necessary, they are contingent Laws. The universe of the Land is ruled by contingency, not necessity.

See above, and: Actually, I think this is a central point for the Land. It is an aspect of the essential paradox. Magic is in the air (or ground). But: earthpower is magical only to us, not the Land...its use is within the law..when the user violates the law, the results are warped, healthsense shows the violation, only damage results. And the power available is limited by the user. Even the violations, though, can't make the universe not exist [unless it somehow rouses the Worm?]. It may alter particular laws, but in itself can't destroy Law itself...you need wild magic for that.
Wild magic also exists, in potential. But to access/utilize it requires something from outside as a 'trigger' if nothing else. Once it is triggered, though, the users has to struggle to restrain it, not draw it forth. Every use, not matter the purpose--good or bad--is a violation and danger, and the lesser part of that danger is the violation of law, the greater is that it threatens the source of Law.

This does not mean that subjective Time "only exists where it is made to exist." That would instead be the case if Time were objective, that is, foundational to things-in-themselves, and obviously imputes the existence of a Creator as it is with the Land.

This leads to more paradoxical places. It is obvious that the Creator created time, [or he couldn't have trapped LF in time, because he was already in time] or time isn't actually the nature of LF's cage [contrary to the text]. Is the Creator, in some sense, 'foundational' for Time? Or is time such for the Creator? Or are there, in some odd way, different varieties of time; the Arch defines a prison for LF within larger 'time frame'? [dual meaning intended].

Well, that was a good time.

Much of what you say is already part of the Creator myth found in the early Chrons. Some of it is speculative, knowable only to Creators themselves.

I agree that magic is in the Land, it is inherent to the Land. But Earthpower has been used to violate Law, which then allows exceptions to its rule. On the other hand, necessity, by definition, allows of no exceptions - ever. The only place I have ever known exceptions to exist was in dreams.

I have proven that the Land is a dream or an illusion despite the fact that SRD has stated in the GI that we should all just grow beyond the question of the Land's reality/unreality. But in fact, he has shown that dreams take on reality to the extent that they affect us.

The Land is just a universe within a universe within a universe. The Creator and LF are aspects of TC - LF is the part of TC that despises lepers - and TC is an imaginary aspect of SRD's own world - the part that despises fantasy writers.

That's not even a joke. It is true if you consider the fact that SRD created TC as a reflection of the opposition to the entire fantasy genre he finds in our own reality. They are, to him, the real-life "unbelievers." I understand where he's coming from, not as a writer, but as someone who has been a major sci-fi fan and had so many people tell me that they just can't stand sci-fi, even though they are unable exactly define why they can't stand it. I think it's because they aren't intellectually equipped to explain their own feelings and value-judgments, and therefore they are not intellectually equipped to appreciate anything as far-reaching as sci-fi.

[Vraith]

The Land is just a universe within a universe within a universe. The Creator and LF are aspects of TC - LF is the part of TC that despises lepers - and TC is an imaginary aspect of SRD's own world - the part that despises fantasy writers.

When I first thought of this (though I didn't take it all the way to the writer as you did...but I can see it due to some of his GI responses) I hated it. Now, I don't. I like the idea that real and fantasy can be layered and affect each other. [in very real, and fantastic, ways]

I understand where he's coming from, not as a writer, but as someone who has been a major sci-fi fan and had so many people tell me that they just can't stand sci-fi, even though they are unable exactly define why they can't stand it. I think it's because they aren't intellectually equipped to explain their own feelings and value-judgments, and therefore they are not intellectually equipped to appreciate anything as far-reaching as sci-fi.

This is oh so true. [though sometimes it's simply lack of exposure and/or pre-judgement based on 'genre' labels...I've turned a few people into fans]
Not only is it true, it is sad. And the action/effects of film are making it worse...when is the last time there was a smart sf/fantasy film? [Star Wars and LOTR have some good things...but they're kid-stuff really]

[thewormoftheworld'send]

The Land is just a universe within a universe within a universe. The Creator and LF are aspects of TC - LF is the part of TC that despises lepers - and TC is an imaginary aspect of SRD's own world - the part that despises fantasy writers.

When I first thought of this (though I didn't take it all the way to the writer as you did...but I can see it due to some of his GI responses) I hated it. Now, I don't. I like the idea that real and fantasy can be layered and affect each other. [in very real, and fantastic, ways]

I understand where he's coming from, not as a writer, but as someone who has been a major sci-fi fan and had so many people tell me that they just can't stand sci-fi, even though they are unable exactly define why they can't stand it. I think it's because they aren't intellectually equipped to explain their own feelings and value-judgments, and therefore they are not intellectually equipped to appreciate anything as far-reaching as sci-fi.

This is oh so true. [though sometimes it's simply lack of exposure and/or pre-judgement based on 'genre' labels...I've turned a few people into fans]
Not only is it true, it is sad. And the action/effects of film are making it worse...when is the last time there was a smart sf/fantasy film? [Star Wars and LOTR have some good things...but they're kid-stuff really]

Sometimes when I watch old Sci-fi reruns on tv I wonder how I ever liked it to begin with. So perhaps the haters were just ahead of me. But I don't find the very idea of spaceship flying around in space, with people in them wearing silly looking outfits, to be utterly ridiculous as do the true haters.

So far I've appreciated the stark realism of the Gap. I'm now working on the third book of the series. I don't remember seeing any sci-fi shows where a character had slumped over his spaceship's control panel out of fear or whatever. It simply isn't done. But you know SRD, he resists all attempts at stereotypes and genre labels, and I love his works for it. All those tv shows just blend into one another, so I don't watch any Babylon 5 or new Star Treks. And I get embarrassed watching sci-fi movies in the theater nowadays. I've been looking for a way to revive my previous interest in sci-fi and it looks like the Gap series is showing me the way.

I did download a huge Star Trek parody a couple years ago. There are a few out there, but this one far outshines the rest. I think I got it at www.StarWreck.com.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

If ever there were shows with magical/mystical/scifi aspects to them that stand on a par with SRD's work, I would have to say that these do. That and the damn mysteries that take so long to solve.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

If ever there were shows with magical/mystical/scifi aspects to them that stand on a par with SRD's work, I would have to say that these do. That and the damn mysteries that take so long to solve.

I'm not saying that about any magical/mystical/scifi elements. I specifically referred to the human element of SRD's novels with my example of slumping over the control panel. Look at Nick's crew in the second book of the Gap, or at Nick himself. Everybody had a unique personality, different responses to events, different motivations, different reasons for being there - and everybody played a role in the events as they played out in the novel. There were no throwaway characters, and nothing incidental to the characterization.

In the original Star Trek series, the Spock/Bones/Jim triad was very interesting, but the other characters, while all unique, tended to fade into the background. And nobody ever slumped over their control panels.

[Vraith]

There's an sf book out there, quite short (250 pages at most) can't recall the title...think think...something like 'memory' in the title...
Anyway, it's about a world that is dying, everything, immediately not eventually, it is quarantined, no one can leave...but every other world is watching it, it's being broadcast live.
One of the main small groups of characters is very goth/nihilist [though the book predates goth]. Anyway, the set-up that it's all dying and it's being broadcast as 'entertainment' is done quickly and effectively...the rest of the time we see the disintegration from a very personal, character-driven, realistic perspective. It has some action/violence/drama, but it's integral, stark, and honest. It deals with ideas and common practicalities [how often do you see a young person not only struggle with the concept of death and meaning, but also have to cope with the imminent, unavoidable, personal reality of it?]. It's full of things like the slumped over controls from fear you mentioned. [not specifically/literally, but affective/effective incidents]
Over-all it's better than average, though the technical quality of the writing doesn't quite live up to the subjects/themes. But it's the kind of book that could re-define the genre, if non-genre people would read it. And it would make an absolutely spectacular film.