Vespers

[rusmeister]

i have gotten a Russian friend of mine reading TCOTC; recently he returned LFB to me (after roughly a year) and has borrowed TIW.
I picked up LFB for a re-read - it had been some years.

When I read the description of Vespers, what struck me most strongly was how it revealed the worldview of the author himself. Vespers as described reminded me of nothing so much as of my experience in a secular men's group in the US before my conversion to Orthodoxy. It expressed a desire for and acknowledgement of (what I would only call) religious experience, but was completely non-religious. If anything, it was like an atheist form of a Protestant worship service. Only now, in light of my experience with a much stronger form of tradition and ritual in Orthodoxy, I found myself comparing it with that, too.

It begins with manipulation of light and a secular meeting-type announcement, followed by a non-religious hymn. Then there is a general statement of faith and more singing.
Then Prothall gives a short sermon, and (more in Quaker style, seemingly) he gets a response from the congregation.

That's all we see, of course, in the story, but I was simultaneously struck, via my own experience, with a sense of the right need for ceremony and ritual recognized even by my men's group - which, although I was an agnostic at the time, broke some of my ex-Baptist suspicion of ritual in general and enabled me to later accept Orthodoxy - and by the paucity of the ritual in comparison with what I have since experienced. I guess you'd have to experience Orthodox worship (or something very similar) to know what I'm talking about - even Catholic doesn't quite cut it. (Try the standard eastern tradition of no pews - of everyone standing through the entire service just for one of many points of difference that make a world of difference.)
(A communication of some of these things):
www.frederica.com/12-things/
Anyway, it no longer strikes me as deeply or profoundly as it once did, although I still enjoy the story. I guess it just reveals the limitation of the author's experience (at the time of writing it, at least) with ritual and ceremony. Certainly he recognized the value of them - as my men's group did. We could say, perhaps, that like Protestants who had abandoned their Catholic tradition, the people of the Land were just making it up as they went along after the loss (since it was not purposefully abandoned) of the tradition of the old Lords. But I'm still left with a strong sense of the shallowness of the ritual, and I don't believe that it was authorial intent to communicate that.

Anyway, I'm not looking to argue anything - just to share what struck me in the rereading of one of our favorite books as it measured up to my personal experience.

[peter]

Mmmm.
Not entierly sure that this is a fair comparison to make Rusmeister, since it seems palpably obvious to me that first hand experiences is always going to outstrip it's representational counterpart in any branch of the arts. Yes, I agree the Vespers ceromony may come across as somewhat trite in hindsight - particularly when held up to the mirror of as rich and ancient a tradition as an Orthodox service (which I have experienced in the painted medieval churches of northern Romania), but how could it not be. The Orthobox tradition has had 1400 years (?) to develop and has benefited from the input of countless individuals who have honed it's ritual and ceremony to the point where of course it pushes all of the right 'aesthetic' buttons. Donaldson on the other hand is one man working alone to greate a whole world for us to loose ourselves in for a while. To recreate the depth of the true aesthetic experience that you refer to, the entire six books would need to be dedicated to the service alone - and the attempt would still fail.

[Orlion]

I think the Vespers show a bit of the contrast with what we had up to that time considered the norm in the Land. Namely, that the "faith" of the Land is one expressed more through works than it is through rituals. However, at Revelstone, we find that the people there are in or need these rituals to connect them to the Land. This could be that, being part of what is the closest thing in the Land to a city, the inhabitants did not have as much oppurtunity to perform works in direct service to the Land.

Either way, there's something to Rus' statement that it was a remnant of the Old Lord's time. Remember, a lot of different traditions from before the Desecration kept the New Lords back, and the emptiness of this ritual could be meant to show that, despite their progress in service to the Land that adherence to old (and incompatible) ideas prevented the people of the Land from doing something more, something better, or even from formulating a ritual that would be more beneficial to their purposes.

[rusmeister]

Mmmm.
Not entierly sure that this is a fair comparison to make Rusmeister, since it seems palpably obvious to me that first hand experiences is always going to outstrip it's representational counterpart in any branch of the arts. Yes, I agree the Vespers ceromony may come across as somewhat trite in hindsight - particularly when held up to the mirror of as rich and ancient a tradition as an Orthodox service (which I have experienced in the painted medieval churches of northern Romania), but how could it not be. The Orthobox tradition has had 1400 years (?) to develop and has benefited from the input of countless individuals who have honed it's ritual and ceremony to the point where of course it pushes all of the right 'aesthetic' buttons. Donaldson on the other hand is one man working alone to greate a whole world for us to loose ourselves in for a while. To recreate the depth of the true aesthetic experience that you refer to, the entire six books would need to be dedicated to the service alone - and the attempt would still fail.

Thanks, Peter.
Yes, I think what you say true.
I guess the thing that I feel - having been an agnostic in a secular circle of ritual myself, is that for the agnostic (or atheist) - that's about as good as can be mustered. I don't think Donaldson COULD have come up with anything better and am by no means criticizing SRD's work as literature there - because that's the limit of what the philosophy can offer. I think he did a fine job for what he was trying to do. My feeling is that both the scene described and what I actually experienced in my men's group - and my pre-agnostic experience as a Baptist, all come up short of what Vespers can really be, even with the noblest intentions and aims. I still enjoy SRD, even though I feel that I 'see through' a lot of his philosophy now. The fact that his work still holds interest for me thirty years after the first read is a credit to his talent.

[Vraith]

Peter makes good points on the relation of actual experience and vicarious/literary experience. But I think there's more too it:
Part of it is purely pragmatic...does the ritual, in acts and/or symbology connect to peoples understanding/experience of the world?
Part of it is in the participants commitment to/communion with the ideology/metaphysics/truth. A softening of the walls of "I," or at least a stepping down from its position as sole sovereign.
Much has been made of the historical connection of theater and ritual...but I think there was an essential split, fairly early on, perhaps from the very beginning, especially related to religious ritual. There are a number of ways to participate in theater/film/music/etc. But the richest requires a "suspension of disbelief"...and always did, even before the phrase was invented. There are any number of ways to participate in worship/religious ritual...but the richest requires "commitment to true faith." On the surface, there are some similarities, at root they are opposites.
So, Rus, your involvement in the second causes the shallowness you see in the fiction. You literally experience the fictional ritual in a different context. [which isn't really a good/bad judgement on how you see it...just a note on difference].

[rusmeister]

Peter makes good points on the relation of actual experience and vicarious/literary experience. But I think there's more too it:
Part of it is purely pragmatic...does the ritual, in acts and/or symbology connect to peoples understanding/experience of the world?
Part of it is in the participants commitment to/communion with the ideology/metaphysics/truth. A softening of the walls of "I," or at least a stepping down from its position as sole sovereign.
Much has been made of the historical connection of theater and ritual...but I think there was an essential split, fairly early on, perhaps from the very beginning, especially related to religious ritual. There are a number of ways to participate in theater/film/music/etc. But the richest requires a "suspension of disbelief"...and always did, even before the phrase was invented. There are any number of ways to participate in worship/religious ritual...but the richest requires "commitment to true faith." On the surface, there are some similarities, at root they are opposites.
So, Rus, your involvement in the second causes the shallowness you see in the fiction. You literally experience the fictional ritual in a different context. [which isn't really a good/bad judgement on how you see it...just a note on difference].

Thanks, Vraith,
I see nothing to disagree with there.
My men's group taught me the practical value of ritual.
It's just that my Baptist experience, the men's group experience, and the description of Vespers in LFB all look remarkably similar to me, (and I was a true believer as a Baptist - a fiery older teenager), and very different from what I see where I am now.

The main thing is a feeling of shallowness in what I left - I can see the bottom - and a depth that I can't plumb where I am.

[jackgiantkiller]

I can recall being thrown in LFB by the inclusion of the word Vespers to me it brought images of monks and nuns praying at set times, I never considered a secular use of the word, what are its latin roots? but it did give somthing to the tale, it gave the lords a spirituality that would have been missed had it not been

[Vraith]

I can recall being thrown in LFB by the inclusion of the word Vespers to me it brought images of monks and nuns praying at set times, I never considered a secular use of the word, what are its latin roots? but it did give somthing to the tale, it gave the lords a spirituality that would have been missed had it not been

IIRC, the literal root means "evening" or maybe "dusk." ...something like that. But functionally, I don't think it's had any non-religious meaning for a very long time, if ever. [basically, the root only indicates the time at which the religious purpose takes place]

[amanibhavam]

vesper
late 14c., "the evening star," from O.Fr. vespre, from L. vesper (masc.), vespera (fem.) "evening star, evening, west," related to Gk. hesperos, and ultimately from PIE *wespero- (cf. O.C.S. večeru, Lith. vakaras, Welsh ucher, O.Ir. fescor "evening"), from base *we- "down" (cf. Skt. avah "down, downward"). Meaning "evening" is attested from c.1600. Vespers "sixth canonical hour" is attested from 1610s, from pl. of L. vespera "evening;" the native name was evensong (O.E. æfen-sang). Hence also vespertine "of or pertaining to evening" (c.1500).

EtymOnline

[danlo]

Right ami! That's all vespers ever meant to me: an evening rite...

[wayfriend]

I think it might be a mistake to assume that Vespers "revealed the worldview of the author himself". A good author invents a worldview for his characters that isn't necessarilly his own, and if they do it well it is quite believable.

I think it also might be a mistake to read too much into what Vespers implies about the spirituality of the Land. Certainly Donaldson wanted to convey what was revealed during that scene, about Prothall and the standing of the Lords and their attitudes and fears.

But did the author wish to convey something by the fact that the people of the Land were the kind of people that even had a Vespers type of ritual? Probably nothing more than that the people were dedicated and strived for unity.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

This one obviously got by the author of the antgear site.
theland.antgear.com/criticisms.html

6. Why are there obvious references to Earth-ly things in the language of the Land? I mean Doriendor Corishev, anundivian yajña ... that's Russian, right? Dukka and dharmakshetra are both Indian I suppose. High Lord Kevin? Satansfist, Satansheart, samadhi, sheol, turiya? I don't like obvious or even obscure "real-world" words like those appearing in the supposedly separate world of the Land. Weaving a spell that allows a reader to suspend disbelief is demanding and unavoidably results in an extremely tenuous balance. It doesn't take much to jar the reader out of the spell's stream of consciousness but a word obviously from our Earth used in an alternate world does it every time.

That criticism goes equally well for Donaldson's use of the word "vespers."

[hpty603]

I think that point can be made moot by that they're speaking English

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I think that point can be made moot by that they're speaking English

Which point, mine or the one in the quote? Speaking English is forgivable, look at all the Star Treks where the aliens just happen to speak it. (This has been changed with the invention of an entire new language: Klingonese.) So there is precedent. However, to be realistic, languages like English don't come out of nowhere, they have many traceable roots in other languages. In the case of "vespers," the root is Latin.

What can I say? It's easier this way than to invent languages as did Tolkien whose inscription on the Ring of Power was in Orkish (aka the Black Tongue of Mordor), not a recognizable earth language. But the antgear site author seems to think this lends reality to Tolkien's work. Furthermore, these tales of Middle Earth were supposedly a kind of alternate history of England, so it is understandable that most characters spoke English.

(By the way, I read that Klingon is used as a secret language by insurgents in Saudi Arabia, thus the Arab government has outlawed the Klingon language.)

[rusmeister]

I think it might be a mistake to assume that Vespers "revealed the worldview of the author himself". A good author invents a worldview for his characters that isn't necessarilly his own, and if they do it well it is quite believable.

I think it also might be a mistake to read too much into what Vespers implies about the spirituality of the Land. Certainly Donaldson wanted to convey what was revealed during that scene, about Prothall and the standing of the Lords and their attitudes and fears.

But did the author wish to convey something by the fact that the people of the Land were the kind of people that even had a Vespers type of ritual? Probably nothing more than that the people were dedicated and strived for unity.

HI, wf.
One step ahead of you there. (ie, I've already thought about that) I do not mean that. My MA is in literature (Russian), so I have a pretty clear conception of authors both directly displaying their world views and inventing ones.

But nevertheless, I am quite convinced that the penetrating reader can still ferret out an author's original worldview with a great deal of accuracy, even though it be masked by literary devices - especially if he is given enough material. (In a despotic culture, such as Soviet Russia or Communist China, the authors very often do mask their true thoughts - yet still want to convey them to those of the public savvy enough to 'get it' - and have an official excuse for the officials.) But I don't think SRD tried that hard to mask it.

When you speak about 'the spirituality of the Land, we are talking about something else, though - the accepted suspension of un-, er, disbelief . There I think that SRD DID want to convey a 'spirituality', because he himself recognizes - on whatever level - that it IS valuable - that it is a motive force that drives people to stand against extermination, be ready, not only to die, but to live and die for their principles. Ritual is a thing that conveys the solemnity of that determination and buttresses it.

This only has somewhat to do with that, but still makes the point, I think:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-09-020-v
Note the how the Marines excel in reverence and ritual over the Christian minister's casualness. The (secular) military, at least, understands this necessity, particularly as one is dealing with life and death.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Donaldson is an atheist or agnostic drawing on his background with the religion(s) he grew up with in order to create an entertaining story.

If one were to claim that Donaldson has an original background to ferret out (as with an anarchist author from deep within the heart of Soviet Russia writing books with an anarchist subtext), then why not just apply this principle to all authors?

I must say that it is a tendency of Russian authors, e.g., Ayn Rand who was originally Russian. Their writings contain a radical countercultural subtext, not just a personal one, and they do not write merely to entertain. The only difference is, it is not hard to ferret out Rand's subtext because she was not writing in Communist Russia, she was free to make the radical nature of her thoughts bluntly clear.

[rusmeister]

Donaldson is an atheist or agnostic drawing on his background with the religion(s) he grew up with in order to create an entertaining story.

If one were to claim that Donaldson has an original background to ferret out (as with an anarchist author from deep within the heart of Soviet Russia writing books with an anarchist subtext), then why not just apply this principle to all authors?

I quite agree with the first. What I might add to that is simply that for me, I formerly didn't think about these questions, and simply admired it. Now I see that expression with different eyes. I don't mean it as a direct comparison by any means, but just to give a sense of it, a 10-year old would love Eragon. An intelligent adult will see a rather simplistic and childish story (as admirable as the fairy-tale genre is). From the standpoint of an adult, a story written by a child, however clever, will be seen as lacking in depth, maturity and insight.
Or it's like John Taylor Gatto. The man is one of the greatest living authorities on public education - but when he speaks about the history of Christianity (in regard to its effects on schooling), he loses it, in my opinion, because I know rather a bit more than he does. He's wandered into a field where his knowledge is limited and people whose knowledge is greater will see that. In the same way, SRD's understanding of religion seems limited to personal experience, and his portrayals of religion and ritual seem to reveal this.


On your other point, I don't think SRD's views are particularly 'hidden' in that way. I think he periodically reveals them in what is ultimately right or wrong for the characters. It goes beyond the parts that touch on 'religion'. But they do show up especially well when he does touch on it.

Anyway, I'm really just expressing how I perceive these things now after 30 years of enjoying SRD, and it was the re-reading of LFB that really brought this up. I still enjoyed my re-reading (just finished last night).

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Donaldson is an atheist or agnostic drawing on his background with the religion(s) he grew up with in order to create an entertaining story.

If one were to claim that Donaldson has an original background to ferret out (as with an anarchist author from deep within the heart of Soviet Russia writing books with an anarchist subtext), then why not just apply this principle to all authors?

I quite agree with the first. What I might add to that is simply that for me, I formerly didn't think about these questions, and simply admired it. Now I see that expression with different eyes. I don't mean it as a direct comparison by any means, but just to give a sense of it, a 10-year old would love Eragon. An intelligent adult will see a rather simplistic and childish story (as admirable as the fairy-tale genre is). From the standpoint of an adult, a story written by a child, however clever, will be seen as lacking in depth, maturity and insight.
Or it's like John Taylor Gatto. The man is one of the greatest living authorities on public education - but when he speaks about the history of Christianity (in regard to its effects on schooling), he loses it, in my opinion, because I know rather a bit more than he does. He's wandered into a field where his knowledge is limited and people whose knowledge is greater will see that. In the same way, SRD's understanding of religion seems limited to personal experience, and his portrayals of religion and ritual seem to reveal this.

On your other point, I don't think SRD's views are particularly 'hidden' in that way. I think he periodically reveals them in what is ultimately right or wrong for the characters. It goes beyond the parts that touch on 'religion'. But they do show up especially well when he does touch on it.

Anyway, I'm really just expressing how I perceive these things now after 30 years of enjoying SRD, and it was the re-reading of LFB that really brought this up. I still enjoyed my re-reading (just finished last night).

Let's say that Donaldson's experience with religion is limited to his parents' views on the subject. His father was a Baptist minister, correct? Then he would have created portrayals of religiosity in his novels which reflect his personal knowledge of religious attitudes, such as a rigid moral code and personal self-discipline.

SRD stated that his mother taught him to feel inadequate. This attitude may also come through in Covenant's inadequacies with white gold. Linden Avery reveals self-doubt. Hile Troy is just a representation of the opposite attitude, he demonstrates the potential for desecration in great self-confidence, as does Kevin. Things are symbolized in black and white terms in the Land.

[wayfriend]

After a moment, Atiaran replied, "Sacred? I know that word, but its meaning is obscure to me. There is Power in the Earth, in trees and rivers and soil and stone, and we respect it for the life it gives. So we have sworn the Oath of Peace. Is that what you ask?"

Certainly, as the above passage shows, you need to be careful to view the entire story before you come to any opinions about the spirituality of the Land. Never mind going from there to judging the spirituality of the author.

Further, the author is human, and makes simple mistakes. Later, in describing vespers, he describes it as a "sacred enclosure". I tend to believe Atiaran's statement is more intentional, and hence more authoritative, while the latter seems more like an inconsistency due to an oversight. Similiarly, there are frequent passing references to gods ("It may be that gods have such dreams as this.") but there is no explicit mention of any particular god-revering religion. In fact, the spirituality of the Land, as reflected in Vespers, goes out of it's way to demonstrate a lack of anything like god-worship. Again, I conclude that the passing references are idiosyncratic inconsistencies.

(In The Hobbit there is a reference to a freight train. Everyone makes mistakes.)

If you understand anything about Donaldson's ideas of Epic Vision, it's clear the people of the Land are infused with the idea that they matter. The Land wasn't built for them; rather they have chosen to serve the Land. And they know that their service has an effect. The whole idea of epic vision is somewhat undermined by the notion of serving a deity instead of the Land, or that anyone or anything but themselves decides how they meet their fate.

And it's only in the lies of the Clave where we find any reference to divine retribution.

No, you can't make any judgement about spirituality on Donaldson's work by only examining Vespers.

[Vraith]

I think [agreeing with some of what Rus said] that there definitely intentional spirituality, and goodness, and such...but also with Worm that it's a mistake to make too literal a connection between the story's and SRD's.

I think the most important way it adds to the background/feel of the story is that, for TC [and for us peeps in real real world] it takes a certain mindset/openness/mood/searching/intention to experience spirituality, see it in the world. But for the people of the Land, the essence of it is right there in front of their eyes every minute...the only way they CAN'T experience it is if something gets in the way.
In some ways that overlaps with the "externalizing the internal" idea on fantasy...but that isn't all there is to it.