What was Really Happening in those Final Paragraphs?

[Zarathustra]

I see the actual Worm and the Myth of the Worm much like our versions of "The Flood" or Achilles and Troy and such, only elevated. There is a blending of the real/historical/factual and the symbolic/metaphysical/meaningful, much as in our world, only more tightly woven/interpenetrating.

Yes, exactly. Not only do we have the analogy of our own experience with creation myths, we also know that Donaldson's images and metaphors have been doing double-duty since the beginning, when Foul was both a distinct charcter, and the externalized representation of Covenant's self-despite ... (and hence, our own as well ... triple duty).

I guess I just don't see the problem here. He's been telling us since the 80s that whether or not this stuff is literally real misses the point. I think that means that the "point" is larger than either reductionistic tactic--in other words picking A) "real" over "dream" and thereby reducing everything in the Land, even magic, to the mundane level of literal truth, or picking B) "dream" over "real" and thereby reducing everything in the Land to pure symbol with only an ambiguous, contrived, and metaphorical connection to reality. As Vraith said in another thread, the primary conflict or problematic here has always been the interplay between the Ideal and the Real. The reason you can't say one or the other is the only correct interpretation is because of the interplay between them, how we know the Ideal by its participation in the Real. (You might substitute "universals and particulars," if you prefer saying the same thing in more familiar terms.)

....the language here is ... taking something mundane (dawn) and seeing it through the lense of the miraculous--both the miraculous that was always there, inherent in this glorious event, and the miraculous of what makes this particular dawn literally catastrophic: the coming of the Worm. Its approach has blotted out the sun, but the sun's glow is still there, and has blotted out the stars.

...
The return of the sun is the affirmation of hope, renewal, a new beginning. The transition from the spiritual/heavenly/dream world of the Night back into the brightness of the everyday mundane world of Day is both comforting and normalizing. The dimensions of reality ease back into smaller, more familiar, brighter, easier to grasp scope. [But if you've ever watched it happen with the same attention you might give a sunset, you'll notice exactly what Donaldson describes here ....]

...

This day-without-a-dawn image is a classic staple of fantasy, right back to The Return of the King when Sauron sends forth his smokes and fumes to cover the land with darkness. Since the return of day is the return of the normal and the mundane--the fulfillment of the vague promise that the future will always be like the past--anything which disrupts this cycle calls our attention back to the largest scale of our existence, that scope which is revealed at night when we can literally see to the ends of the universe. The disruption of Future's Promise, the intrusion of the "spiritual" upon the mundane, and the expansion of reality to its largest scale, all combine to show us how illusory our complacency and self-imposed limits really are. We really don't have any assurance that the future will be like the past, nor is there anything about this world that is truly normal and mundane. The limits we enjoy during the day, which shrink reality down to a managable scope, are just subjective ways to make sense of the Void.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

earthbrah is, I believe, very correct. We do have, for example, an actual Creator and an actual Despiser. However, Donaldson still wants us to look beyond those personages, to the 'eternal concept' that those beings are suppose to help us gain a glimpse of.

He told me so Well... ali, dlb, Romeo, and me. So, in the contradiction term... everything in the Chronicles is meant to be taken 'literally' and 'metaphorically'.

I couldn't imagine seeing it as non-metaphoric.

[wayfriend]

Didn't Donaldson say on the GI that every creation myth could be reconciled, and that there was no contradiction between them?

He says that there's no contradiction because they are different ways of viewing the truth. NOT because they are literally consistent with each other.

We all see the world through perceptual filters. We emphasize some things and leave others out. The various myths and legends of the Land reveal some truth about the Land itself (the creation of the Earth, etc.); but they also reveal some truth about the people telling the story. Those myths and legends diverge because the people telling them are different from each other.

So: it's quite intentional that myths "diverge". And yet remain true.

[wayfriend]

Has anyone considered yet the significance of this?

Bleeding from more wounds than he could count, Covenant found the path that led toward his present self. At once, he began to work his way along it. And while he arose from the Earth’s past, he fused fissures behind him. He closed cracks. Rife with silver fire, he healed breaks until all of them were mended.

Deliberately he annealed fragments of his former being, rendering them inaccessible so that he could be whole.

So ... in the final book, it looks like we won't have to deal with Covenant falling into memory cracks and zoning out.

But the tradeoff is that he has lost even more of what he might have wanted to remember.

Something broken. An interesting twist on a common theme. In order to remain solidly in the present, Covenant has to relinquish more of the past. In order to heal himself, Covenant has to lose himself. He has to irrevocably incorporate being something broken in order to become whole.

[Orlion]

Has anyone considered yet the significance of this?

Bleeding from more wounds than he could count, Covenant found the path that led toward his present self. At once, he began to work his way along it. And while he arose from the Earth’s past, he fused fissures behind him. He closed cracks. Rife with silver fire, he healed breaks until all of them were mended.

Deliberately he annealed fragments of his former being, rendering them inaccessible so that he could be whole.

So ... in the final book, it looks like we won't have to deal with Covenant falling into memory cracks and zoning out.

But the tradeoff is that he has lost even more of what he might have wanted to remember.

Something broken. An interesting twist on a common theme. In order to remain solidly in the present, Covenant has to relinquish more of the past. In order to heal himself, Covenant has to lose himself. He has to irrevocably incorporate being something broken in order to become whole.

As nice as it would be to have a fully functional Covenant again, I'm going to miss the random mental excursions into the past.

[Vraith]

Has anyone considered yet the significance of this?

Bleeding from more wounds than he could count, Covenant found the path that led toward his present self. At once, he began to work his way along it. And while he arose from the Earth’s past, he fused fissures behind him. He closed cracks. Rife with silver fire, he healed breaks until all of them were mended.

Deliberately he annealed fragments of his former being, rendering them inaccessible so that he could be whole.

So ... in the final book, it looks like we won't have to deal with Covenant falling into memory cracks and zoning out.
But the tradeoff is that he has lost even more of what he might have wanted to remember.

Something broken. An interesting twist on a common theme. In order to remain solidly in the present, Covenant has to relinquish more of the past. In order to heal himself, Covenant has to lose himself. He has to irrevocably incorporate being something broken in order to become whole.

As nice as it would be to have a fully functional Covenant again, I'm going to miss the random mental excursions into the past.

I liked those as well, some of my favorite stuff.
But on WF's point: I thought something else on that...it isn't in any way contradictory with what you say, which is important and the broken/whole has a parallel/partner with the power/impotence idea. It's interesting that in many ways, especially physically, he's more broken than ever before...but his "soul" or "self" more "whole."
Anyway, my complement to what you said: Losing that knowledge of the past perhaps adds options/possibilities for the future. Lacking facts, ones choices entail more risk...but the number of choices is, in some ways, less restricted, and which choice will be made less predictable/predetermined.

[wayfriend]

It's interesting that in many ways, especially physically, he's more broken than ever before...but his "soul" or "self" more "whole."

Well put! (I love it when you can throw out the sketch of an idea and someone can pick it up and refine it.)

I'm going to miss the random mental excursions into the past.

Well, I for one have never found them to be as "random" as others seem to think that they are. They always seem to be more relevant to the situation than the other characters seem to realize. Which makes sense, if you consider that Covenant falls into these "excursions" by following a chain of thoughts which begins in the present.

[Vraith]

Well, I for one have never found them to be as "random" as others seem to think that they are. They always seem to be more relevant to the situation than the other characters seem to realize. Which makes sense, if you consider that Covenant falls into these "excursions" by following a chain of thoughts which begins in the present.

Heh...I won't speak for O, though I think it's probably the same...didn't mean/take random that way, unconnected to events, but as in for us [and the char's] in the sense of not knowing what or why or how one would be set off, or where it would go.

[peter]

So: it's quite intentional that myths "diverge". And yet remain true.

All myths are true to the people who believe them - for those who they have cultural significance. The problem I think we have here (re the Worm vs the Arch myths) is that SRD has used the actuality of both (mutualy exclusive) creation myths, by providing evidence of each of their respective 'truths' to build further elements of his story on. This was always going to be problematic.

[shadowbinding shoe]

We're not the only ones who had to compromise between the two Creation myths. The Creation myth Foamfollower tells Covenant (in the name of the Unhomed) is clearly an amalgamation of the two myths. There's a Creator, a Despiser and stars that get imprisoned in the Creation. They heard both stories because they visited the Elohim on their way to the Land, where they met the Lords.

As in-story viewpoints that faced the same conundrum as us and had hundred of years to resolve it maybe we should accept their version as the most informative.

[Vraith]

I still think some are being too literal even with the literal stuff...by which I mean something like pre-math, pre-science, there was a literal sun, and it literally rose and set, "making" day and night...yet there was no literal chariot-riding god pulling it around. So I don't see the problem with a literal worm that eats literal earthpower, and has been resting/digesting since its last meal AND the other parts of the story that may be allegorical/mythological, yet still "true."

[wayfriend]

Vraith, in those terms, I would say: I would be disappointed if it turned out that the Arch of Time was the chariot. Just because I've invested in it since the First Chronicles. I'd rather they were all chariots, and the actual concepts "too big for words".

But what about that darned Würd? The Elohim brought it up, but then they have gone on about the Worm ever since.

How can a literal Worm be an ethic?

[earthbrah]

wayfriend wrote:

But what about that darned Würd? The Elohim brought it up, but then they have gone on about the Worm ever since.

How can a literal Worm be an ethic?

THAT is a great question. One reference is very concrete, one is very (shall I say) aloof, or at least very conceptual. What is the difference between the Würd/Weird and the Worm?

[peter]

In some ways is it not inevitable that SRD should build a paradox (for us) into the heart of his story (even desirable in it's sort of 'rightness' or 'fittingness'), in that TC had also to accept the paradox at the centre of his presence in the Land in order to progress - as above, so below.

[Zarathustra]

Back to the worm/myth thing ...

I think we're looking at the wrong part of the literal/metaphor divide. For instance, its skin wasn't the earth. The earth "grew" from its skin:

"And while the Worm rested, the power of the stars wrought within it. From its skin grew excrescences of stone and soil, water and air, and these growths multiplied upon themselves and multiplied until the very Earth beneath our feet took form. Still the power of the stars wrought, but now it gave shape to the surface of the Earth, forging the seas and the land. And then was brought forth life upon the Earth. Thus were born all the peoples of the Earth, the beasts of the land, the creatures of the deep - all the forests and greenswards from pole to pole. And thus from destruction came forth creation, as death gives rise to life.

If we're going to read this literally, we could accept it as plausible because the Worm could awaken and roam the earth without the entire earth necessarily being destroyed in that instant, as long as we recognize that the earth isn't literally its skin, just something that grew from it. The Worm could leave its spot in the earth just like a hermit crab leaving its shell to find a new, bigger one.

Or......that's the part that is metaphorical! It's a literal worm, but the creation myth surrounding this literal worm is a metaphorical embellishment, and not literally how the world was created. Just because the worm is real doesn't mean that the rest of the story actually happened exactly like that myth suggests. It's not really a Creation myth at all. It's the Worm of the World's END, not the Worm of the world's BEGINNING.

Instead of a creation myth, it's actually a destruction myth.

The Worm was supposed to symbolize the destructive capacity within life all along, and only symbolized the creative part of this process by default--i.e. because creation/destruction are tied together. The earth-being-the-Worm's-skin detail could have been added as an embellishment just to account for the fact that the Worm was there, and not really for the fact that the earth was there. There was this thing, under the earth, that could destroy the earth. People invented a myth to account for such a horrific fact ... really a myth about death. A way to cope with it. But how do you cope with the fact that life carries the seeds of its own destruction? Well, by admitting that it's a natural part of life. Tying the Worm of the World's END to the creation of the world itself is a recognition of this fact, but not necessarily an explanation for where the earth came from.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Back to the worm/myth thing ...

I think we're looking at the wrong part of the literal/metaphor divide. For instance, its skin wasn't the earth. The earth "grew" from its skin:

"And while the Worm rested, the power of the stars wrought within it. From its skin grew excrescences of stone and soil, water and air, and these growths multiplied upon themselves and multiplied until the very Earth beneath our feet took form. Still the power of the stars wrought, but now it gave shape to the surface of the Earth, forging the seas and the land. And then was brought forth life upon the Earth. Thus were born all the peoples of the Earth, the beasts of the land, the creatures of the deep - all the forests and greenswards from pole to pole. And thus from destruction came forth creation, as death gives rise to life.

If we're going to read this literally, we could accept it as plausible because the Worm could awaken and roam the earth without the entire earth necessarily being destroyed in that instant, as long as we recognize that the earth isn't literally its skin, just something that grew from it. The Worm could leave its spot in the earth just like a hermit crab leaving its shell to find a new, bigger one.

Or......that's the part that is metaphorical! It's a literal worm, but the creation myth surrounding this literal worm is a metaphorical embellishment, and not literally how the world was created. Just because the worm is real doesn't mean that the rest of the story actually happened exactly like that myth suggests. It's not really a Creation myth at all. It's the Worm of the World's END, not the Worm of the world's BEGINNING.

Instead of a creation myth, it's actually a destruction myth.

The Worm was supposed to symbolize the destructive capacity within life all along, and only symbolized the creative part of this process by default--i.e. because creation/destruction are tied together. The earth-being-the-Worm's-skin detail could have been added as an embellishment just to account for the fact that the Worm was there, and not really for the fact that the earth was there. There was this thing, under the earth, that could destroy the earth. People invented a myth to account for such a horrific fact ... really a myth about death. A way to cope with it. But how do you cope with the fact that life carries the seeds of its own destruction? Well, by admitting that it's a natural part of life. Tying the Worm of the World's END to the creation of the world itself is a recognition of this fact, but not necessarily an explanation for where the earth came from.

Fantastic!
You took many ideas I had floating in my head and wrapped them all up nicely.

[Vraith]

Yea, what HLT said.
And it possibly addresses WF's question "How can a literal Worm be an ethic?" It arises naturally [perhaps even necessarily] from intelligent beings faced with life and death and the pure overwhelming power manifest in nature.
In a way, it's a similar/parallel pattern to propositional logic giving rise to 1st order, then 2nd order logic.

[Orlion]

Keep in mind, they call it the Worm at the World's End because, to the Elohim, its characteristic of causing the end of the world upon awakening is more important to them then whether it was used to fashion the Earth or they are children of it.

[wayfriend]

Keep in mind, they call it the Worm at the World's End because, to the Elohim, its characteristic of causing the end of the world upon awakening is more important to them then whether it was used to fashion the Earth or they are children of it.

Are you sure? The World, if it was a segment on a timeline, would have two Ends.

[shadowbinding shoe]

According to the Elohim the Worm was never a creative force. It ate up stars and it would eat up Elohim, Earthpower, etc. but the world was created from the concentrated Earthpower of the eaten stars.

To me the point of the Worm story was not to contest the Creator/Foul story per se but to illuminate an important point about it: Nothing is created from nothing. There is some sort of Conservation of Matter/Energy/Earthpower at work here. It wasn't enough for the Creator to think up a new world with unique Laws. He needed raw materials to make this world with and this raw material was the Stars.

For some reason the Elohim have always tried to minimize the importance of the Creator and Foul. If we accept that they were the root cause for their entanglement with the Worm a lot of things start to make more sense.