Runes, Prolouge, Ch. 1: Mother's Son

[wayfriend]

I'm disappointed by this, however, because it seems to violate Donaldson's own symbolism about what white gold means. I suppose a tentative explanation could be that the ring can symbolize passion/power/freedom and still be a reflection of how a person uses it.

I don't think we should assume that a ring is a ring, and that they are all the same.

Other things aside: what the ring means to Covenant arises from what the ring is to Covenant. It stands for passion (love); it stands for commitment (principle); it stands for loss (the wages of leprosy). Actually, I cannot properly do justice to what the ring means to Covenant, but surely that's some of it.

My understanding is that those things are what unlocks Covenant's passions. For example, he fears power, for how it can be abused, but commitment and principle help him use power without fear of abuse. He has become inured to loss, but the ring reminds him of that which was lost, unlocking that emotion. He has lost his ability to feel, but the ring reminds him of when he experienced love, and that there is something still worth doing in the world.

Unlocking his passions in turn releases the wild magic.

Joans relationship with her ring is going to be completely different, and so what the ring symbolizes will be completely different. The ring must mean, to Joan, something about promises broken, love abandoned, and selfishness.

The ring, to Joan, must signify all that she must be punished for. She wants it because she has come to desire punishment, to think that she deserves nothing but retribution upon herself by herself.

The passions that the ring would evoke from Joan would be horrifying.

Probably, if anything, the ring comforts Joan because it enables her to punish herself as she feels she needs to. In that way, it completes her.

[dlbpharmd]

This is a q&a from me to SRD a few years back:

Don: Your comment the other night about "needing the ring more than Tolkien" has really had me thinking about Covenant and Joan and their relationship. Just as the state of the Land was mirrored in Covenant in First Chronicles, Joan's physical state reflected the plight of the Land in 2nd and now Last Chronicles. Is Joan connected to the Land simply because she and Covenant were married, or is there some deeper reason?

Well of *course* there's "some deeper reason". <grin> But I hope you don't expect me to tell you what it is. I mean, aside from obvious things like: she has a white gold ring (the "mate" to Covenant's); and her "betrayal" of her marriage vows has left her vulnerable to the insidious seductions of Despite. However, I will say that if you're willing to stretch a point or three, you could conceivably think of her as Covenant's thematic doppleganger. (How come there's never an umlaut around when you need one?)

(07/02/2007)

I've always thought that if a completely different person with a completely different white gold ring would NOT have the same power as Covenant and Joan have with their rings.

[Zarathustra]

However, I will say that if you're willing to stretch a point or three, you could conceivably think of her as Covenant's thematic doppleganger.

That sounds like what I was saying here:

I'm convinced that giving back Joan's ring is the single most important detail of this chapter. The juxtaposition of Thomas Covenant being given back his ring at the beginning of LFB, and Joan being given back her ring at the beginning of Runes, is surely not coincidental. Donaldson is obviously saying something here. Both people are broken souls, but broken for "opposite" reasons. TC is broken because of what has been done to him by his town, his wife, and himself. Joan is broken down because of what she did to TC. ("Her shame was fertile soil for the seeds of despair and madness.") Restoring TC's ring gives him an opportunity to hope; restoring Joan's ring gives her an opportunity to despair.

But don't they really have the same choice? Perhaps it's two sides of the same coin.

SRD said that the rape of Lena was important to show that TC really could go either way, that it was plausible that he was "evil" and could choose to damn the Land. That choice arises out of the paradox of the white gold. Freewill. One can use it in destructive or creative (constructive) ways. Joan is simply making the opposite choice that TC very well could have made. It's the same problem, the same symbolism. Two sides of the same coin.

Wayfriend, TC's and Joan's wedding rings both stand for their previous love and commitment. While it's true that both people are suffering for different and "opposite" reasons (perhaps "counterpart" is a better word), both rings symbolize the loss of that previous love/committment. How it affects each person is the only difference. How they react to it is the difference. "Thematic doppelganger" implies:

"A literary technique by which a character is duplicated (usually in the form of an alter ego, though sometimes as a ghostly counterpart) or divided into two distinct, usually opposite personalities." [Answers.com]

Now I'm not saying that Joan is part of TC's mind, but in terms of the themes, thematically she is his counterpart, and specifically in how it relates to her possession of her ring. As SRD himself said above.

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend, TC's and Joan's wedding rings both stand for their previous love and commitment. While it's true that both people are suffering for different and "opposite" reasons (perhaps "counterpart" is a better word), both rings symbolize the loss of that previous love/committment.

I can't agree with that. Joan and Thomas lost different things when they lost their marriage. And their relationship with that loss is insurmountably different in both cases: one chose, the other did not; one was betrayed, the other was a betrayer; etc. Of course how it affects them is different -- and the differences arises from this.

Joan's ring cannot signify commitment to Joan - as she was not fully committed. Thomas's ring cannot signify faithlessness to Thomas, as he wasn't faithless. Etc.

[Zarathustra]

WF, so in what sense do you think SRD meant, "you could conceivably think of her as Covenant's thematic doppleganger," specifically in the context of their wedding rings (which was the context of the question/answer)?

I think their pain and loss are indeed counterparts of the same break up. This is hardly controversial to claim. They were married; they divorced. The rings are quite plainly linked by this. The wedding rings symbolize their marriage. That's the primary symbol of any wedding ring. But these two rings in particular just happen to belong to the divorced couple in question. So their pain and loss are linked. Joan suffers from what she did (to TC), while TC suffers from what was done to him (by Joan). They are exactly counterpart problems. One problem couldn't exist without the other. TC couldn't feel bereft of love if Joan didn't leave him; Joan couldn't feel guilt if TC didn't feel bereft.

Joan and Thomas didn't lose different things; they both lost their marriage. While it's true that they reacted to this loss differently, they're both reacting to the same loss.

I don't think it's fair to say that one chose, while the other did not. Neither of them chose leprosy. TC didn't choose to get it, and Joan didn't choose to marry someone with it. But they both chose their reactions to it: Joan ran away, while TC stubbornly, mechanically fought on.

Thomas's ring cannot signify faithlessness to Thomas, as he wasn't faithless.

Well, he very well could have been "faithless." That was part of the danger. Why else would the beggar warn him to "be true"? The issue at hand was being true to himself. Sure, that doesn't hold exactly the same meaning as Joan not being true to Covenant, but the issue of commitment and being true is TC's trial as well. (Hence the name, "Covenant." ).

[wayfriend]

WF, so in what sense do you think SRD meant, "you could conceivably think of her as Covenant's thematic doppleganger," specifically in the context of their wedding rings (which was the context of the question/answer)?

I would guess, being put on the spot, that she's Covenant's "opposite personality". Where Covenant was loyal, Joan was betraying; where Covenant was principled, Joan was self-serving; where Covenant feared power, Joan had no qualms (as expressed with the horses).

But they both chose their reactions to it: Joan ran away

That was the choice of which I spoke. Joan chose to end the marriage; Covenant did not. Their feelings on the matter would have to be different, on that basis. The personal meaning attached to the ring would have to be different, on that basis.

[Zarathustra]

I would guess, being put on the spot, that she's Covenant's "opposite personality". Where Covenant was loyal, Joan was betraying; where Covenant was principled, Joan was self-serving; where Covenant feared power, Joan had no qualms (as expressed with the horses).

Well, I don't disagree with any of that. However, there's a part that's missing: the ring.

... she has a white gold ring (the "mate" to Covenant's); and her "betrayal" of her marriage vows has left her vulnerable to the insidious seductions of Despite. However, I will say that if you're willing to stretch a point or three, you could conceivably think of her as Covenant's thematic doppleganger.

Donaldson was talking about her being the thematic doppleganger in the context of her relation to her ring (the mate of his). This is pretty much exactly what I was saying: their respective rings gives them both the same power, the same choice, but they (being counterparts/opposites) go in "opposite" directions with that power and choice. Covenant accepts his freewill and responsibility; Joan denies hers.

But they both chose their reactions to it: Joan ran away

That was the choice of which I spoke. Joan chose to end the marriage; Covenant did not. Their feelings on the matter would have to be different, on that basis. The personal meaning attached to the ring would have to be different, on that basis.

I think we're basically in agreement. Yes, their feeling on the matter are obviously different. But if there wasn't a "center" around which these two reactions revolved, then it wouldn't make sense to say she's a thematic doppleganger. There has to a common ground, and that is their failed marriage and how their rings symbolize this--along with the potential for redemption (or conversely, self-destruction). Two sides of the same coin.

[dlbpharmd]

Whatever impression one might have about ROTE, the undeniable fact is that this first chapter in the prologue is an example of SRD's best writing. Everything from the name "Mr. Covenant" in the first line to "over my dead body" in the last line is perfect.

IMHO, of course.

(re-reading ROTE before FR comes out)

I started my re-read last night, and once again I was struck by the perfection of this first chapter.