Lord Foul

[hyarmion]

I am sure this would have been discussed before, but I am mystified by the Despiser’s use of the name “Lord Foul”. His name was not actually “Foul”. He apparently used the name a-Jeroth whilst he sat on Kevin’s Council. So he would have been Lord a-Jeroth (or maybe just Lord Jeroth, as fan fiction has proposed).

I can understand that after the betrayal at Treacher’s Gorge Kevin may well have thrown the epithet “Foul” at the Despiser, but would he ever have been “Lord Foul”? Surely after Treacher’s Gorge, Kevin’s first act would have been to expel a-Jeroth from the Council (assuming of course that there was a mechanism by which a Lord could be expelled from the Council).

Of course, the Despiser might have, for his own amusement, continued to consider himself a member of the Council and continued to claim the title “Lord”. But surely he would have done so as Lord a-Jeroth. Yet when we first meet him in the First Chronicles, he introduces himself as “Lord Foul the Despiser.”

Any thoughts, anyone?

[Orlion]

I think Lord Foul was a more commonly known name among the inhabitants of the Land. When Foul sent Covenant with a message to Revelstone, I believe he counted on Covenant sharing it with others along the way, and he wanted people to start fearing for their lives. A message from a-Jeroth may not mean anything to anyone but the High Lords and Lorestat scholars, but Lord Foul, their's a name that even little children know and fear!

[sindatur]

I am sure this would have been discussed before, but I am mystified by the Despiser’s use of the name “Lord Foul”. His name was not actually “Foul”. He apparently used the name a-Jeroth whilst he sat on Kevin’s Council. So he would have been Lord a-Jeroth (or maybe just Lord Jeroth, as fan fiction has proposed).

I can understand that after the betrayal at Treacher’s Gorge Kevin may well have thrown the epithet “Foul” at the Despiser, but would he ever have been “Lord Foul”? Surely after Treacher’s Gorge, Kevin’s first act would have been to expel a-Jeroth from the Council (assuming of course that there was a mechanism by which a Lord could be expelled from the Council).

Of course, the Despiser might have, for his own amusement, continued to consider himself a member of the Council and continued to claim the title “Lord”. But surely he would have done so as Lord a-Jeroth. Yet when we first meet him in the First Chronicles, he introduces himself as “Lord Foul the Despiser.”

Any thoughts, anyone?

That's what the Lords named/call him, and the name strikes FEAR into the people of the Land, so really, why not perpetuate the stereo-type?

'Least that's how I see it

[Morinmoss]

His actual first name was Jim-Bob, but nobody took him seriously or was afraid of him. So he changed it to Lord Foul.

[Fist and Faith]

It's what the Land's inhabitants called him. The Haruchai called him Corruption. The Ramen called him Fangthane. The Giants called him Soulcrusher. etc

[shadowbinding shoe]

Lord Foul lorded it over all the foul creatures in the lower land.

Is a-Jeroth his true name?

[Hiro]

SRD has written about his choice for the name Foul. Some quotes from the GI:

Hasn't this come up before? I believe it has, somewhere in the GI. But in any case: I think it's safe to assume that Lord Foul did not call himself "Lord Foul" when he seduced or manipulated his way into Kevin's Council. Even an archetypalist of my deep-dyed hue isn't *that* naive.

(09/17/2008)

I do recall SRD saying, perhaps in an interview somewhere, that he found the name Foul, in retrospect, too archetypal.

[Barnetto]

SRD has written about his choice for the name Foul. Some quotes from the GI:

Hasn't this come up before? I believe it has, somewhere in the GI. But in any case: I think it's safe to assume that Lord Foul did not call himself "Lord Foul" when he seduced or manipulated his way into Kevin's Council. Even an archetypalist of my deep-dyed hue isn't *that* naive.

(09/17/2008)

I do recall SRD saying, perhaps in an interview somewhere, that he found the name Foul, in retrospect, too archetypal.

He answered my post on the GI as follows:

As for Lord Foul: as I've said before, I was young and unpublished, had nothing to lose, and saw no reason not to be overt about my archtypal intentions. If I were starting the whole project today, I would probably want to be more subtle.

[Hiro]

SRD has written about his choice for the name Foul. Some quotes from the GI:

Hasn't this come up before? I believe it has, somewhere in the GI. But in any case: I think it's safe to assume that Lord Foul did not call himself "Lord Foul" when he seduced or manipulated his way into Kevin's Council. Even an archetypalist of my deep-dyed hue isn't *that* naive.

(09/17/2008)

I do recall SRD saying, perhaps in an interview somewhere, that he found the name Foul, in retrospect, too archetypal.

He answered my post on the GI as follows:

As for Lord Foul: as I've said before, I was young and unpublished, had nothing to lose, and saw no reason not to be overt about my archtypal intentions. If I were starting the whole project today, I would probably want to be more subtle.

Exactly! That was the quote I was looking for. Perhaps SRD should have called him:

Benign Being
Lord Noble

or just

Joe

short for a-Jeroth

[illender]

To the Lords of Revelstone, I am Lord Foul the Despiser; to the Giants of Seareach, Satansheart and Soulcrusher. The Ramen name me Fangthane. In the dreams of the Bloodguard, I am Corruption. But the people of the Land call me the Gray Slayer.

I couldnt find where it says how he got the name Foul but apparently only the lords referred to him as that, at least according to him.

[ninjaboy]

To the Lords of Revelstone, I am Lord Foul the Despiser; to the Giants of Seareach, Satansheart and Soulcrusher. The Ramen name me Fangthane. In the dreams of the Bloodguard, I am Corruption. But the people of the Land call me the Gray Slayer.

I couldnt find where it says how he got the name Foul but apparently only the lords referred to him as that, at least according to him.

I call him Fangthane.

[peter]

For me he will always be Lord Foul the Despiser and I like it that way. Maybe because I was young when I first encountered him it never once struck me that his name was too overt a reference to his nature - and it never has since. He is Lord Foul the Despiser. Who else could he be?

[ninjaboy]

For me he will always be Lord Foul the Despiser and I like it that way. Maybe because I was young when I first encountered him it never once struck me that his name was too overt a reference to his nature - and it never has since. He is Lord Foul the Despiser. Who else could he be?

The Render, the Grey Slayer, Fangthane are names that I always had a stronger association with.. I don't know why.
'Lord Foul' never really grabbed my attention or my imagination.

[peter]

In fairness I always had a soft spot for the Bloodguard's name for Foul. Corruption. It just has the right feel for those guys about it.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I think Lord Foul is the best.
It's commanding simplicity makes it grand.

[ninjaboy]

I think Lord Foul is the best.
It's commanding simplicity makes it grand.

Simple, yes.. However I don't like the idea of calling him 'Lord Foul' for a couple of reasons.
a/ He's not a Lord. He was, I understand, but you'd think the title would have been revoked when he was revealed as an enemy of the Land.
b/ Any inhabitant of the Land could have become a Lord during any era when there was a Council of Lords. It's a human title for human achievement. The Grey Slayer is not human. He may take human form, but he is immortal and has existed since before the Creation of the Land. So I've never been satisfied with such a human name, something more eternal, or otherworldly, and significant of more than a human achievement is needed.
The Giants might say it's too small a name for one such as he.

[3rd warrior on the left]

I think Lord Foul is the best.
It's commanding simplicity makes it grand.

Also any name denying his true nature would have been exposed over the millenia (end of Kevin's era onwards at least to the people of the Land) . The Lords call him 'Lord' because they know (or suspect) his power or capability, and everyone else names 'him' according to their culture.

Not having read all of this thread (its late ) , when was he first known by 'unpleasent' names?

[Horrim Carabal]

In my opinion the people of the Land probably invented the name "Lord Foul" to refer to the Lord who had betrayed them and the Council, that Lord being a-Jeroth.

I think it's safe to say that a-Jeroth is Lord Foul's real name.

"The Despiser" is probably also an invention of the Land's people, like "The Unbeliever" was. Foul most likely kept these terms and began using them himself because they fit, they amused him, or some combination of the two.

[jelerak]

I had to go back a ways here...way back to December of 2004.

There is my question (and answer by SRD) about the naming of Lord Foul :

Stephen Allange: Stephen...thanks so much for answering my previous question. This question is pertaining to the naming of Lord Foul. The name in itself is something that doesn't quite fit with my imagination of the various names associated with the Land. His other names given to him by the various races seem to be better fit for origin in a society like that I imagine that would populate the Land. (The Gray Slayer, Corruption, Fangthane, A-Jeroth of the Seven Hells, the Despiser). It just makes me wonder why such a being would be named as Lord Foul. Did he give himself this name? I cannot imagine that was his name when he gained Kevin's trust and infiltrated the Council of the Lords. Was there another name that Kevin knew Lord Foul by? And why such a mundane name for such a powerful and malignant being?

Thanks again for the time that you put into this forum...it allows insight to that which has been written by an author in a way that I have never been a part of (or have encountered) before.

Steve








I'm sorry to say that the best answer I can give you is: I was young. From my present perspective, "Lord Foul the Despiser" seems like a crude and overly-obvious choice. But at the time, way back in the early 1970's when I was first planning the story and characters (more than half my life ago), I particularly wanted to emphasize the archetypal nature of the character. I didn't want to go the Tolkien route: pick a name like "Sauron" and *pretend* he isn't Evil Personified. Because of the themes around which the first trilogy in particular revolves, I felt I had something to gain by--in a manner of speaking--putting my cards face-up on the table. After all, Milton wrote about Satan explicitly. Why shouldn't I be equally daring, since my ambitions were certainly comparable to Milton's?

Nowadays, of course, I'm used to the name, so it doesn't bother me. But if I were starting the first "Chronicles" today, I would take a more subtle approach.

(12/09/2004)

[Horrim Carabal]

I remember reading that in the GI.

But still, "in-book" there has to be an explanation for the name "Lord Foul". We can't just say he's named that because the author was using archetypical themes.

So..."in-world" my speculations remain as stated above.