The Chronicles as Allegory

[Lord Verement]

I have read the 1st 2 Trilogies several times (not for years) and have just rediscovered them, in the middle of TIW right now.

Sorry if this seems rambling, but here are afew thoughts on the subject

I have always viewed the Land and the story as an allegory (not sure if this is correct literary definition) for TC. He enters the Land and he is actually entering himself. The various parts of the Land are parts of himself

Haruchai-Self Preservation
Lords-Intellect
Ranhym-Passions-his love for his wife
Giants-his humor
The rape of Lena-his birth
The Devestation-discovering he has leprosy
Andellain-sweet innocence of youth
Lord Foul-the negative of a human's mind/spirit, literally despair
White Gold-Love for another person
THe One Forest-youthful innocence destroyed by maturing
THe people's devotion to the Land-Love for one's self
The 2nd Chronicles seem to be about TC finding the capacity to love another person-LA
ELena-is possibly his novel (something he creates, yet eventually rejects)or just another seduction of himself, something he is terrified of doing, ie he is afraid of loving himself, for fear he will lose himself, so he violently rejects her

The series seems to me to be about mankind trying to find an answer to despair, the answer in the 1st trilogy was to simply laugh at it, we give despair power by allowing it to exist and control us, to laugh at it denies power, the second trilogy shows the only final answer to despair is death, as despair is an irreversible and irredemible part of life

I view all that happens in the trilogies in terms of a man's interactions with himself, he cannot forgive himself, he is afraid to love and trust himself, ie to believe in himself.

id be interested in others thoughts and dont be afraid to tell me Im crazy
:O)

[Orlion]

Welcome, Lord Verement! Why not introduce yourself to the masses here so we could get to know you better!

Donaldson has often defined fantasy as an externalization of internal conflict... particularly in terms of the Chronicles, so to say that the 'Land' is symbolic or allegorical of the inner conflicts of Thomas and Linden is most likely spot on. The complicated part is what each part represents, and interpretations vary (my friend's father-in-law has an in-depth theory of how everything in the First chronicles relates to and represents a body under the assault of leprosy).

Often, the chronicles being an attempt to find an 'answer to despite' is a prevalent one. The relationship between this basic premise and how it relates to the first and second chronicles to me is that the first deals with the individual, despair that may arise from dissatisfaction or disgust with ones' self. The second deals with despair that you find in relationships, which would be a different kind of despair indeed. In this interpretation, the answer is still somewhat what you mentioned in your post with regards to the First Chronicles, but the Second could become 'being willing to sacrifice everything.'

[Lord Verement]

hmmmm as I enjoy the 2nd Chronicles I will definitely keep your comments in mind.

I think even leprosy is symbolic of depression/despair corrupting a person's soul, destroying feeling, destroying their bonds with their fellow human beings, controlling one's life

I think your father was on the right track, though the first chronicles represents a body fighting despair

[Lord Verement]

FWIW, this interpretation makes Lena's rape and Elena's actions more palatable, realizing these are things TC is doing to himself

[Holsety]

I don't think you're crazy, I'm crazy. But I do disagree with you:

In The Illearth War there are sections of the text in Revelstone, IIRC, where the text takes Mhoram's point of view. It also takes Mhoram's point of view at the end of the war portion of the text, when he sings to the Forestal and gets Fleshharrower's army destroyed. This seems to suggest that the land is more than a projection of Covenant, as does the presence of the beggar in the real world, whose question on the fundamental matter of ethics is far too perfectly placed to be an accident. There are additional things in the Second Chronicles which make the idea that The Land is a dream of Covenant even harder to believe. Foul reaches out of the Land and seems to hold some power over the cult in the second chronicles. Linden Avery enters the Land with Covenant - it doesn't seem to make too much sense that someone else could enter a dream imposed by one's subconscious.

Also, I don't see how some of the connections you draw really hold, for instance how is rape = birth? In that situation, I don't see why it would even be something he reflects on...do you remember your birth? Instead of focusing on subconscious realizations which can't be proven, I think a stronger connection can be made to things that are actually in the text - Lena has to do with his rediscovered vitality (remember how he wasn't even able to muster up desire over the girls he sees in "Golden Boy?") and his discovered fear that the Land is a dream "out to drive him mad."

The desecration is also not like Covenant discovering he has leprosy, since the former was voluntary and the latter was not. Also, Covenant's response to his leprosy is initially a kind of stunned disbelief followed by staunch decision to fight off death no matter how much joy was taken from him. Meanwhile Kevin's was suicide for a greater cause, simultaenously destroying what he was fighting for. However, it is true that Covenant refers to Kevin as a leper in a spiritual sense - I just don't think the kinship really makes sense, because Covenant's leprosy made him unwilling to fight for the Land.

As for the people's devotion to the Land being love for oneself, it seems to make not that much sense because they swear service to the land as though the land was something more worthy of service than themselves. Perhaps to some extent they discover self-worth in projects of beauty, but despite their catchphrase "joy is in the ears that hear" they seem to think that there is some intrinsic value that the land has even without humans to people it.

I don't see Elena as his novel, either. His novel was rejected because he thought it was overoptimistic and foolish in the face of his leprosy. Elena was beautiful but she was driven to extremes by the plight of the land - very different from the seemingly idyllic nature of his burned manuscript. The burned manuscript, I think, represents Covenant's lost innocence more than Andelian.

The Ranyhyn don't fully make sense as a sign of Covenant's love for his wife because he specifically reflects that unlike his wife, he was afraid of the horses even after Joan taught him to ride. But he never reflected a fear of Joan.

I don't think that the first chronicles were really just about laughing at despite. That isn't how Covenant beats Foul, after all. Chiefly he does it by just deciding to act in service of the land and fight! - the ring's power suffices once triggered. There were many different answers - Troy, for instance, actually did bring a temporary victory by taking on the responsibility that Covenant refused to and refusing to give up (though he faltered along the way) because he was afraid to admit defeat - because defeat would mean a betrayal of the Land. Much the same can be said of Mhoram, who based his hope on faith in Covenant and kept the Krill by his side and chose to fight in the face of defeat.

The White Gold, which can't be forgotten is about power in contradictions, about not forgetting about something that seems lost (Covenant and Joan's marriage). Covenant himself embodies other contradictory impulses, being moved by the beauty of the land but being unwilling to intervene because of how he fears it would affect his ability to survive in his own world. Though it also seems like his unbelief is a defense mechanism regarding Lena.

[Lord Verement]

Been a while since I have read TPTP so I will reserve comment on the aspects of that book.

I remember reading a series of short stories by SRD where he covers the mission to Seareach in one chapter from the perspective of the lords iIRC. SRD noted that he got rid of this chapter and replaced it with the Haruchai's stories because he didnt want a chapter soley from a Land based character's perspective. Though yes Mhoram is featured as a perspective character in TIW.

HT is an earth based character and I think was used by SRD to circumvent the perspective issue for TIW (amoung other symbolic meanings)

you are correct about rape=birth (it obviously did not occur at the creation of the Land), though I still think there is some symbollic connection between his enterance to the land and his self

The desecration was TC's reaction to his leprosy, it was destruction of his old life, a suicide of sorts for his old ways, he viewed this as being the only way to save himself from corruption and despair, to literally save himself, but he learns that this destruction of his old life does not get rid of his despair, that his despar laughs at him thinking he would rid himself of his despair.

your comments on the people's relationship to the land reinforce my point TC IS the land, a part of him represented by the people of the land-feelings thoughts, emotions, senses, serve the Land, serve his beautiful soul or essence. The oath of peace follows that, in that beauty flows from service to himself and that one should not hurt oneself.

I am currently going over Elena's symbolism now, I am about to start on the chapters in the TIW devoted to their trip to Garroting deep and will reserve comment on that.

The ranhyn clearly represent his wife or his love for his wife or his passion for his wife. His wife broke horses. the ranhyn were unbroken horses that fearfully bowed to TC. IN the beginning of LFB SRD describes JOan as seducing the horses more than breaking them seemingly refering to a sexual ie passionate relationship. TC when he enters the land fears that passion because he fears he will be hurt by it. he fears loving his wife because he will be hurt by it. Through leprosy (despair) he could die from it.

the whtie gold as you describe is the contradiction.

He fears loving himself or believing in himself, because he fears that by loving himself he will not be able to survive hte world (that is despair working on him-in the real world)

[wayfriend]

I view all that happens in the trilogies in terms of a man's interactions with himself, he cannot forgive himself, he is afraid to love and trust himself, ie to believe in himself.

Personally, I think that viewing the stories as only an allegory for Covenant's internal struggles with himself is as bad a mistake as viewing it only as a literal adventure. That believing the Land is a dream is as mistaken as believing it is real.

You kind of point out one of the reasons for my opinion, where you say, "this interpretation makes Lena's rape and Elena's actions more palatable". These things are not supposed to be palatable. They are supposed to be dire.

And if Covenant's love for the Land is, in the end, only a love for himself, then he hasn't really made the leap of loving something else. Which is tremendously necessary in my opinion. Loving something else, fighting for it and serving it and sacrificing for it, is critical to the wholeness that Covenant finds.

[Zarathustra]

Good points, WF. I think learning to love one's self is the first step to loving others, however. After all, Linden (and hence a meaningful relationship within someone else) didn't come about until the 2nd Chrons. Self-despite can certainly shut down one's capacity to love beyond one's self, and then we take it out on everyone else. Reversing that orients us in the right direction, puts us on the path outside of ourselves.


Lord Verement, I don't necessarily agree with one-to-one relationships between Chronicles features and allegorical points, because I think SRD's work is too complex for that, but just for fun let's consider it. Your original symbolic meaning I've left in quotes, with my response in brackets; otherwise I've updated it with a different symbolic meaning.

Haruchai - Self-control [rather than self-preservation]
Lords - Lore [which includes more then intellect or knowledge]
Ranhym - "Passions-his love for his wife" [okay, I'll buy that]
Giants - "his humor" [sure, but also hope ... a positive way of responding to the tragedy of life]
The rape of Lena - loss of self-control, the bad or seductive side of passions, TC's potential to be The Despiser [absolutely not his birth]
The Desecration - "discovering he has leprosy" [okay, I'll buy that too, but I'd add his destructive act of pushing everyone away, cutting himself off from humanity as a coping mechanism, a response to this confrontation of his own mortality and inability to defeat it]
Andellain - health, life [which comes from youth, but not necessarily innocence]
Lord Foul - Despite, the negative reaction to mortality/disease/alienation inherent in the human condition.
White Gold - passion and free will [It can't be love for another person, because Wild Magic both brings hope and destroys peace. It can go either way.]
THe One Forest - youthful innocence destroyed by maturing [Not bad, I'll go with that.]
THe people's devotion to the Land - "Love for one's self" [Well, I'd modify that by saying love for life in general, which fundamentally includes love for oneself.]
"The 2nd Chronicles seem to be about TC finding the capacity to love another person -LA" [That, and sacrifice as a solution to the problem of evil, a 2nd "solution" to the "problem" of our mortality and facticity.]
ELena - "is possibly his novel (something he creates, yet eventually rejects)or just another seduction of himself, something he is terrified of doing, ie he is afraid of loving himself, for fear he will lose himself, so he violently rejects her" [Hmmm .... Not bad, but it might be premature to say what she symbolizes]

The series seems to me to be about mankind trying to find an answer to despair, the answer in the 1st trilogy was to simply laugh at it, we give despair power by allowing it to exist and control us, to laugh at it denies power, the second trilogy shows the only final answer to despair is death, as despair is an irreversible and irredemible part of life

Yes, that's part of it; you're on the right track. But I'd phrase it more like this: we are mortal, finite beings conscious of our own temporary, limited existence. Our life and health is a beautiful gift, but it is lived within an unavoidable, unbeatable context of death and suffering. There is no creation without destruction, no life without death, no health without disease, no beauty without abhorrent truths as well. Despair is one reaction we can have to these facts, but there is also love and hope. We can fight the unattractive truths of our existence (1st Chrons), or surrender to them and accept them (2nd), or .... something else (Last Chronicles).

6...

[Holsety]

I actually don't agree with the commonly held idea that it is necessary to love oneself in order to love others - within the books, Lord Verement (the character, not the user) is a great example of this. He despises himself because he was not chosen by a ranyhyn even though his wife was and believes himself weak. However, he himself says to Flesharrower that "my love for my wife was not enough" [to preserve her] or something like that, and personally I don't doubt that he did sincerely love her - after all, he was driven to hate and despair by her death. I also hate myself and love others, so it just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Zarathustra]

I think it's necessary in the sense that if you don't love yourself, if you despise your own humanity, then you will carry over this hatred into your relationships with others. A hate-filled person cannot really love. It will poison those relationships. Hating yourself cuts you off from the ability to transcend yourself, to embrace the humanity in others, because of the "gravity" of your own black hole of Despite. In order to turn away from yourself--to get over yourself--and move outward into the realm where relationships are possible, you have to first negate that self-collapsing Despite.

Loving others isn't merely about finding a hot chick whom you dig. It's easy to love a beautiful, intelligent, positive woman. No, loving others is more about accepting their flaws, their limitations, their blemishes, their stupid mistakes, their bouts of pettiness, their humanity. If you can't forgive these things in yourself, how can you do so for others? If you hold yourself to a higher standard--i.e. you're unwilling to cut yourself the same slack that you'd cut for others--then your "love" for others is marred by an arrogance, i.e. the idea that your flaws and mistakes are more important, less forgiveable, than theirs.

In addition, love is a reciprocal emotion. It's also allowing others whom you love to love you back. How can you allow others to love you if you don't love yourself? Are they stupid for loving you? Misguided? Mistaken? No, in order to give and receive love, it starts with you. You have to accept your own flaws and allow others to love you in order to have this recriprocal relationship that is Love.

All this Covenant perfectly illustrates with his unwillingness to let himself feel, and to let other touch him (both literally and figuratively).

5...

[Lord Verement]

just a quick point, in themiddle of a good movie

read the 2nd half of TIW over the past day or so and at least three times there was references to similarities between TC and the Land.

He could see himself in Garrotting deep
Elena molds the bust from bone that TC thought was Bannor but was of him
he speaks of the rape of lena as a hurt against himself

I am currently considering that the rape of lena may refer to original sin somehow or perhaps just a basic wrong done that reverberates through one's entire essence/soul

also please dont think that I believe it is ONLY an allegory for himself, but the story has many layers (one of the great things about the books)

i do end up looking at the story in terms of stuff he does to himself

[Holsety]

Zar, to a certain extent I agree with what you say, and I think it is a good point regarding Covenant's situation, but I don't think that it really is true all of the time. It essentially seems to have the underlying assumption that since we all make mistakes and have flaws, you have to love anyone who has flaws (including yourself) if you're willing to accept any flaw. But it's quite possible for one's own flaws and mistakes to exceed the flaws and mistakes of others. Not all lives are, or rather, in the eyes of the beholder have to be equal - some people can reasonably be judged to be better people than others, even if we only believe it to be a matter of circumstance.

Also, if it were true that one has to accept one's own flaws, no matter what they were (even rape) in order to accept other people's flaws, then it would be true that one has to accept any person's flaws in order to accept others - that it would be impossible to love at all if any spark of hatred flared towards anything. That idea rings like a clear falsehood to me - conflicting emotions often exist in human beings, and such is a major theme of the chronicles. Look at Elena: her extreme love of the land bore forth a hatred for Foul who seeks to bring it to ruin.

Love isn't necessarily about embracing human flaws - it's about forgiving them, unless you're perverse. It's similar to how enjoying life isn't about reveling in necessary or unnecessary pain, unless you're a masochist. Because oftentimes there are virtues along with the flaws. But loving the flaws? The only way I can think of to enjoy the flaw of another person is mockery.

[peter]

Hi Lord Verement ( an awsome responsibility to live up to in that name ) Welcome to the Watch.

Unlike many of our deeper thinkinking (it's as I typed it and I thought it worth leaving in ) collegues, I tend to always lean toward the view of the Land as being meant to be real and being written as such. For me, on my first and all subsequent readings, SRD seems to be leading us in the direction of knowing that the Land is for real and that it is only TC who is unable to see it as so. Hence I spend the first couple of books shouting at TC "It's real, you fool, I't's REAL!" (part of the fun for me) until he seems to get it himself somewhere in TPTP. This is my reading of the books and I am aware that it does not tally with many others. For that reason I tend to not be able to get along very well with to much psychological analysis of what corresponds to what in TC and the Land. I know I am probably in the group that would read Animal Farm as a story about animals on this basis - but trust me this interpretation has done me very well over the years and on some occasions from what I have read in these pages, has I think enhanced my overall enjoyment rather than detracted from it. I know I'm just a fool but.........

[High Lord Tolkien]

Lord Verement, great post.
I'm in the "The whole story is a dream" camp.
So many of your ideas appeal to me.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Hi Lord Verement ( an awsome responsibility to live up to in that name ) Welcome to the Watch.

Unlike many of our deeper thinkinking (it's as I typed it and I thought it worth leaving in ) collegues, I tend to always lean toward the view of the Land as being meant to be real and being written as such. For me, on my first and all subsequent readings, SRD seems to be leading us in the direction of knowing that the Land is for real and that it is only TC who is unable to see it as so. Hence I spend the first couple of books shouting at TC "It's real, you fool, I't's REAL!" (part of the fun for me) until he seems to get it himself somewhere in TPTP. This is my reading of the books and I am aware that it does not tally with many others. For that reason I tend to not be able to get along very well with to much psychological analysis of what corresponds to what in TC and the Land. I know I am probably in the group that would read Animal Farm as a story about animals on this basis - but trust me this interpretation has done me very well over the years and on some occasions from what I have read in these pages, has I think enhanced my overall enjoyment rather than detracted from it. I know I'm just a fool but.........

So I'm a shallow thinker?! I have the same perceptual tendencies as you. People shouldn't forget that without the foundations (ie the straightforward interpretation) their whole tower of allegory and metaphor and numerical riddles will come tumbling down. The lowest, basest layer is also the most important one.

Before coming to this forum I never guessed the characters and people of the Land were somehow supposed to be reflections of Covenant or Linden + Covenant or Covenant + Hile Troy. I can see it now if I stop to think about it but the story totally works if you look at them straightforwardly, as characters and peoples with unique, individual characteristics and not just as one dimensional reflections of some side of a protagonist.

[High Lord Tolkien]

This seems to suggest that the land is more than a projection of Covenant, as does the presence of the beggar in the real world, whose question on the fundamental matter of ethics is far too perfectly placed to be an accident. There are additional things in the Second Chronicles which make the idea that The Land is a dream of Covenant even harder to believe. Foul reaches out of the Land and seems to hold some power over the cult in the second chronicles. Linden Avery enters the Land with Covenant - it doesn't seem to make too much sense that someone else could enter a dream imposed by one's subconscious.

But we don't know when the dream starts do we?
What if LFB started mid-dream and never stopped?

[Holsety]

This seems to suggest that the land is more than a projection of Covenant, as does the presence of the beggar in the real world, whose question on the fundamental matter of ethics is far too perfectly placed to be an accident. There are additional things in the Second Chronicles which make the idea that The Land is a dream of Covenant even harder to believe. Foul reaches out of the Land and seems to hold some power over the cult in the second chronicles. Linden Avery enters the Land with Covenant - it doesn't seem to make too much sense that someone else could enter a dream imposed by one's subconscious.

But we don't know when the dream starts do we?
What if LFB started mid-dream and never stopped?

It seems to me that if one never had a waking reality, and one spends one's entire life in a dream, as you seem to be proposing, then it is reality after all.

Realistically, however, it would seem to be the case that Lord Foul's Bane is not a dream or reality, but rather a work of fiction.

[shadowbinding shoe]

This seems to suggest that the land is more than a projection of Covenant, as does the presence of the beggar in the real world, whose question on the fundamental matter of ethics is far too perfectly placed to be an accident. There are additional things in the Second Chronicles which make the idea that The Land is a dream of Covenant even harder to believe. Foul reaches out of the Land and seems to hold some power over the cult in the second chronicles. Linden Avery enters the Land with Covenant - it doesn't seem to make too much sense that someone else could enter a dream imposed by one's subconscious.

But we don't know when the dream starts do we?
What if LFB started mid-dream and never stopped?

It seems to me that if one never had a waking reality, and one spends one's entire life in a dream, as you seem to be proposing, then it is reality after all.

Realistically, however, it would seem to be the case that Lord Foul's Bane is not a dream or reality, but rather a work of fiction.

The further one reads into the Chronicles, the less Covenant's 'real world' seem a part of our world and more something else.

[Lord Verement]

i apologize if I gave the impression that allegory as I described is the only or even best view of the books. It is one of the levels. The mark of great literature (for me) is a story that works on multiple levels, as does this story. I am only refering to how the story could be viewed in terms of an allegory for TC and LA.

Couple of other points

in terms of the above, his belief in the Land refers to his belief in himself, instead of doubt and self confidence in place of self loathing. A moral leper (metaphorically representing a corrupt or sinful person, a degenerate, someone with alot of self loathing) separates himself from the world (his leprosy-his illearth stone and his basic concept that he is evil-his lord foul). Belief in the Land under my supposition is acknowledgement of oneself, belief in onself, acceptance of oneself (acceptance that one is made of a combination of good (white gold) and evil (despite/venom).

Be True, Unbeliever-despite your lack of faith in yourself, be true, act according to faith in yourself

I am attracted to Lord Verement because of his anger and response to his lack of self worth.

[shadowbinding shoe]

I dislike this kind of egocentric type of morality. To justify an aversion to murder or rape with how bad it is to yourself seems like a perversion of what morality should be to me.

I agree that Lord Verement is a great character.