Thoughts on re-reading

[DrPaul]

I suspect that Mr. Donaldson himself would accept the fact that our reading of his books changes as we age or change life circumstances and I also suspect he would not feel badly if we dislike portions of his books or the way a character is portrayed

You suspect correctly, based on my correspondence with SRD about precisely this issue.

[Vraith]

I wonder, Z, if it's mostly a case of knowing too much at this point.

For instance, one of my big dislikes of Wheel of Time is that few events are unpredictable, and worse, even fewer of them have important unintended consequences.
And that's so even on a first reading.
SRD is less predictable, and many of the consequences only take on importance in hindsight.
In the CC case...I didn't really see his suicide coming, and I sure didn't see the need/impact of the Law-breaking.
But it is clear that the structure is every bit as constructed...even more tightly perhaps than WoT, and can't be unseen now.
That particular thing doesn't bother me a lot, probably because I always thought [at least I think I always thought] the Forestals had vision.
But some do bother me, and often I find myself semi-consciously-on-purpose trying to ignore the plot and focus on other aspects to avoid what you seem to be experiencing.

[Orlion]

I think a couple things are being expressed here:

1) The idea that certain characters are micromanaging/microplaning everything. I do not see that as the only possibility. Foul does not micromanage (though he certainly wants you to think so) and neither did CC. Taking advantage of present circumstances to further your own goals does not mean that you were dependent on certain people to do certain things at a certain time. It just means that, "Hey, I think I can break the Law of Life/Death now... sure, why not?" Foul did not need Covenant to rape Lena or for Elena to summon Kevin to fight him. But hey, if the opportunity arises, why not take advantage?

2) Sometimes we project ourselves into the story and act all, "hey, I would NEVER do that." We forget that the story is not about us, after all, but about the characters. We also assume that the author did not WANT us to feel frustrated with the characters.

[Zarathustra]

Foul does not micromanage (though he certainly wants you to think so) and neither did CC. Taking advantage of present circumstances to further your own goals does not mean that you were dependent on certain people to do certain things at a certain time. It just means that, "Hey, I think I can break the Law of Life/Death now... sure, why not?" Foul did not need Covenant to rape Lena or for Elena to summon Kevin to fight him. But hey, if the opportunity arises, why not take advantage?

I forgot where I heard it, so I can't give proper credit, but it's my understanding that a writer can use a coincidence to get a character into trouble, but should never use a coincidendence to get a character out of trouble, particularly if that "trouble" is the main conflict of the story. That's kind of a deus ex machina, isn't it?

So Foul taking advantage of an unpredictable event to make things worse isn't the same as CC taking advantage of an unpredictable event to add a crucial ingredient to the solution, without which the entire plot of two series comes crashing down. And if CC isn't micromanaging or omniscent, then it's just a coincidence, and Covenant's solution didn't come from himself but rather dumb luck. His solution would have been a colossal failure if not for a convenient alignment of situation ... which isn't convenient at all, but manufactured by the author. Therefore, SRD solved his character's conflict, rather than TC solving it himself. That's not a story, in my opinion. It's the illusion of a story. The Creator himself might as well have swooped into his world to save the day. The "intrusion" feels just as wrong to me, and breaks the Land just as much.

[shadowbinding shoe]

I'm pretty sure CC's (and the Deads') solution would have worked just as well if:

a. CC killed Holian himself and taunted Sunder with it until Sunder did something violent.

or

b. presented Holian's ghost under a cruel geas to the company and taunted them with it until the same thing happened.

The only difference would've been that we would dislike him more.

[Orlion]

Nevermind that Covenant is the white gold, it may be that he never needed the Law of Life to be broken to begin with.

[wayfriend]

Covenants solution in the Second Chronicles involved him learning the painful lesson that he couldn't save the Land, he couldn't even undo the damage he had done the last time he was in the Land; and by figuring out that he could defeat Foul, but only by sacrificing himself, a notion that is only possible by truly coming to understand who he was, and who Foul was, and what the Land was; and by sparing the Land the danger of his own venom, in an act of self-immolation that even the Elohim admired for it's "valiant hazard"; and by empowering Linden to be the heir of his ring, which he had done by the very example of his striving to save the Land, and by loving who she was rather than who the Haruchai believed her to be.

Luck?!?!

[Zarathustra]

Luck?!?!

No, not all that, just the part I was talking about. Everything else you listed would have been for nothing if not for the Law of Life being broken so he could resist Foul, rather than being merely a spectator (as described at the end of WGW).

Nevermind that Covenant is the white gold, it may be that he never needed the Law of Life to be broken to begin with.

Well, maybe. But not according to the text. Not according to TC as the Guardian of the Arch, explaining it to Linden.

I'm pretty sure CC's (and the Deads') solution would have worked just as well if:

a. CC killed Holian himself and taunted Sunder with it until Sunder did something violent.

or

b. presented Holian's ghost under a cruel geas to the company and taunted them with it until the same thing happened.

The only difference would've been that we would dislike him more.

Good points. However, it would still be pretty lucky (or at least not dependent upon TC) for TC to do something that required input from another, if TC didn't realize that input was necessary. This could have very easily been turned into character development--rather than deus ex machina*--if TC had known that his plan required the breaking of the LoL, and counted on CC doing it. Maybe he could have anticipated that CC would know what his solution required (in which case it wouldn't have been necessary for CC to ask TC not to intervene, despite TC's incomprehension), and steered his own quest in that direction with this purpose in mind ... to take advantage of what he knew CC would know to be necessary. That would have been "sacrificing" Hollian to the consequences of her decisions, pretty much how it actually happened, but even more disturbing due to the foreknowledge of what this entails.

*a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem [defeating Foul without breaking the Arch] is suddenly and abruptly resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event [Breaking Law of Life], character [CC/Hollian/Sunder], ability [killing a forestal], or object [with a magica knife]. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring a happy ending into the tale, or as a comedic device.

[wayfriend]

Still don't get it. Is Vain along the same lines? And the Search? Memla? The Elohim? Covenant wouldn't have resolved his dilemma without these things, either -- and many many more. In fact, it's one of the lessons Covenant needs to learn. He comments on it often.

When is help deus ex and not just help? Is CC's help in a different category because it came late in the story rather than early? Is it in a different category because Covenant wasn't aware that he needed help?

I think the important thing is that Covenant wouldn't have resolved his dilemma without undergoing his own arc of experience and learning. He need that as well as help. Caer-Caveral's help didn't obviate the whole journey Covenant went through. deus ex would be a valid criticism if breaking the Law of Life was -ALL- that was needed to defeat Foul.

To speak to the definition you quoted, CC didn't "resolve" Covenant's problem. He just provided an ingredient which was needed, and which Covenant would not have been able to use had he not "resolved" the problem himself.

If a god comes down and smites the dragon that the knight had vowed to defeat, that's deus ex machina. If a god comes down and hands the knight a sword, and says 'hop to it', that's not. (And if a god comes down and hands the knight a jewel, and leaves the knight to figure out on his own it can be used to slay the dragon ...)

Just my humble O.

[Orlion]

*a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem [defeating Foul without breaking the Arch] is suddenly and abruptly resolved, with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event [Breaking Law of Life], character [CC/Hollian/Sunder], ability [killing a forestal], or object [with a magica knife]. Depending on how it is done, it can be intended to move the story forward when the writer has "painted himself into a corner" and sees no other way out, to surprise the audience, to bring a happy ending into the tale, or as a comedic device.

One of the many reasons why I've been weary of using the term "deus ex machina". Seems like it's developed to the point where all you need is a plot that moves and cries of "deus ex machina"! fill the air.

And let's face it, the problem [defeating Foul without breaking the Arch] was not resolved, abruptly or suddenly, by CC's actions. Foul was not magicked away crying "curses...foiled again!" They still had to journey and struggle their way into Mt. Thunder, where Covenant still had to sacrifice himself and Linden still had to let him.

[Orlion]

I forgot where I heard it, so I can't give proper credit, but it's my understanding that a writer can use a coincidence to get a character into trouble, but should never use a coincidendence to get a character out of trouble, particularly if that "trouble" is the main conflict of the story. That's kind of a deus ex machina, isn't it?

I do not think so, necessarily. Covenant still has his own growth and decisions to make in order to resolve his own problems. The fact that there are bad guys creating conflict and good guys lending support does not make a deus ex machina.

Let's take an example from somewhere else: The Hobbit. Bilbo stumbles on the Ring and that Ring is important to the story, however the Ring itself does not resolve Bilbo's character arch or his inner conflicts... he has to find his own courage and stick with it on his own. The Ring is merely some trappings of the story, part of the setting.

Now, let's look at the part where they are trapped in trees and the goblins are burning them down. At that point, they were in a pretty unsolvable or very difficult problem... and if I recall, Gandalf was about to sacrifice himself to try and give the dwarves and Bilbo a chance when, all of a sudden, The Eagles come and rescue all of them. Even if summoned, that is a prime example of what I think deus ex machina would be.

Which leads to my final grievance with the term: it has negative connotations. Deus ex machina is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be done horribly, but it does not always need to be so. It does not even need to be lazy writing. I think a good example of a good Deus ex machina is the ending of the War of the World. It enthralled me then and it enthralls me now. The best deus ex machinas are the ones that pose as natural consequence. Sure, the humans did not defeat the Martians, but that is not what War of the World is about, anyway.

[Zarathustra]

As Frostheart pointed out, this isn't the Tank. So I'm conscious of the danger of seeming too argumentative here. But you guys are continuing, so I supposed everyone's cool with it.

I think it's a fair point that good guys can have help from friends. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe even a little luck. Sure. But a little help along the way for a minor obstacle in the path--in order to get a little farther down the path--is quite a bit different from solving an unforeseen, catastrophic problem within the main character's final solution, without any input or knowledge from the main character himself. That's not, "Let me help you with this obstacle;" thats, "Let me fix your final solution for you, since you can't fix it yourself and don't even know you need to." Can't we all admit that's a huge difference?

When you add to that the fact that CC's absolutely vital help could not have been planned from the beginning, but was merely taking advantage of contingent, fortuitous events which could have been otherwise, then you have both elements of the D.E.M.: a contrived, unexpected situation combined with "miraculous" intervention.

If there's no problem with characters helping out, then why not allow TC to have unlimited access to commanding Vain? Everytime there's a problem, "Nekhirima!" (or whatever that word was ... "presto" if you want). Or why not have the Creator reach into his own world? Well, because that makes it too easy, and takes the struggle out of the protagonists' hands. [Tolkien had Gandalf leave Bilbo and the Dwarves for precisely this reason, btw. There's no story if magical helpers solve the main problems for the protagonist.]

Obviously, help can't be unlimited. And the greater the help, the more this should be balanced by being planned, foreseen, or somehow earned.

I don't think Vain was a D.E.M. He was planned from the beginning, for one thing. While it's unexpected to us, it wasn't unexpected to the characters who planned it (unlike CC's help). While that's help from others, that's not coinicidence or luck. And Vain didn't solve TC's problem by shifting the very laws of the world so that TC's end-game solution would work, enabling him to defeat Foul. Vain presented the circumstance or opportunity for Linden to use her particular skills in order to heal the Land; he didn't give her those skills or reverse a catastrophic oversight within them. He was a tool, a "conduit" for her basic characteristics (healthsense + healer by trade). He allowed her to express her basic character, rather than fixed it for her. She still did all the work.

Let's use a sports metaphor. Suppose TC is playing in superbowl, and the final seconds are counting down, he has the ball and is running to score the winning touchdown. I have no problem at all with his teammates blocking for him, taking out the obstacles in his path. However, if he is running in the wrong direction, and a guy with a bulldozer that only runs on Martian dust just happens to see a Martian meteor fall in time to fuel his bulldozer so that he can plow up the entire football field and shift the endzones under TC's feet so that he runs to the correct one, I don't care how hard TC ran, I still wouldn't say that he won the game. I'd put the credit on the miraculous, unexpected, "divine" intervention of the magical bulldozing. If I were a member of the other team, or a fan betting on the outcome, I'd feel cheated. Because he cheated. You might as well say it doesn't matter if he runs to the wrong endzone (or defeats Foul), and give him credit either way. But that's merely giving him points for effort.

[Orlion]

Hey, it's nice to have a lively literary discussion that keeps us fanbots on our toes... (I at least acknowledge that I could very well be a Donaldson fanbot).

Here's how I view it (with another sports analogy)

The Fouls are beating the Covenants by four points. Covenant has a stratagem to get a touchdown, but time is running out and the Fouls have the ball. All they need to do is run the clock down. First down, Foul passes the ball to someone abstract concept. CC and Sunder tackle the crap out of it and it fumbles the ball, which Hollian recovers. CC is injured and out for the game, but now it is the Covenants' ball and they have about forty seconds to score a touchdown.

A gambler may feel cheated/frustrated by this outcome, but it is a legitimate play and does not even require a contrived bulldozer!

Covenant still has his part to play in the grand scheme (and it is ultimately not just his problem so not only he has to deal with it) and further, he resolves his own character arch with the pieces given him. He embarks on an action that, apparently, he was going to do whether or not CC did his deal or not. Just like in my sports example: sure, it helps A LOT. But if it did not happen, there are still other things that could have occurred for the Covenants to win the game. I do not need it to come down to the last fifteen or five seconds before an interception/hail mary wins the game. We have plenty of those types of stories.

Oh, and "Last Chronicles spoilers"

Spoiler

I think the existence of the Last Chronicles make CC's actions more relevant to Linden resurrecting Covenant. That makes more sense for a Law of Life violation, whereas Covenant's spirit appearing at the last battle is a mere Law of Death violation. Covenant may have thought CC's actions helped him there, but I think he was mistaken, particularly since spirits appeared 'unbidden' and laughed Foul out of existence during the First Chronicles.

In other words, I hold fast to my position because of the existence of the Last Chronicles. If those did not exist, your position and mine would be nearly equally valid with yours carrying a little more weight. Now, it hinges on whether this was one of the "seeds" Donaldson placed for the Last or if it was retroactively changed.

[wayfriend]

Like I said above, I see no essential difference between Caer-Caveral breaking the Law of Life (essential to the final resolution, Covenant unaware he even needed it) and the ur-viles providing Vain (essential to the final resolution, Covenant unaware he even needed it) and meeting up with the Search (essential etc, unaware etc) and finding the Haruchai (essential, unaware) and Memla's switching sides against the Clave (dittos), and I am sure many more things. If anyone can say why Caer-Caveral's actions are different somehow, I'd like to hear of it.

It's in the nature of stories that you collect pieces of a puzzle as you go along, and sometimes they aren't recognized for what they are until the end. That's all I see here.

Now, that being said,

The very nature of the Chronicles takes this one step further. I want to add some "Epic Vision" comments here.

SRD specifically constructs the Chronicles so that the dilemmas that the characters face are ultimately internal. Covenant's real quest is for the awareness and self-mastery and resolution required to defeat Lord Foul. Everything that happens outside of that has no importance, except insofar as it brings Covenant internally to a necessary mental and emotional state, a state required to defeat Foul. Nothing from the Land matters at that point -- all that matters is what is in his head. At the end, he needs nothing specifically from the Land, neither lore nor power nor artifact nor acquaintence.

This is by design. Donaldson is constructing a specific epic that succeeds where Tolkien fails. It's an epic that we can be connected to. In the end, we don't have to say, 'That was awesome, but none of that bears on who I am.' It succeeds in this because Covenant had everything he needed to overcome his struggle -- except the right outlook. We can't get a Ranyhyn or become a Lord, but we can acquire an outlook.

Look at the new Staff of Law. Covenant completely fails in getting a new one. But in the end, it literally walks right up to him. (Okay, he's dead at the time, but still.) Deus ex machina? No -- because that wasn't Covenant's real struggle, the real problem he had to solve. Building a new Staff of Law was nothing that he really needed to do. So what does it matter how he gets one in the end? What really matters is how he realized his responsibility to the Land.

In short, Donaldson specifically built a story in the Chronicles were details such as this don't really matter.

And, just to make things even more complicated...

Final Chronicles Hardly-but-Technically-A Spoiler:

Spoiler

It's my opinion that Breaking the Law of Life was entirely for the purpose of setting the stage the Final Chronicles. It had nothing to do with the Second Chronicles at all. The bit about it being necessary for Dead Covenant to confront Foul seems to me like a barely plausible fabrication thrown in so that the Second Chronicles could stand on its own if the Final ones were never written. I say this because Dead Kevin and Dead Elena didn't seem to have any problems being Dead.

[Zarathustra]

The Fouls are beating the Covenants by four points. Covenant has a stratagem to get a touchdown, but time is running out and the Fouls have the ball. All they need to do is run the clock down. First down, Foul passes the ball to someone abstract concept. CC and Sunder tackle the crap out of it and it fumbles the ball, which Hollian recovers. CC is injured and out for the game, but now it is the Covenants' ball and they have about forty seconds to score a touchdown.

A gambler may feel cheated/frustrated by this outcome, but it is a legitimate play and does not even require a contrived bulldozer!

I'm not sure what's what in your analogy. In mine:

1. Bulldozing the playing field = breaking the Law of Life (fundamentally altering the structure of the Land's world on a plane "beneath" or "beyond" the players/characters).

2. TC running toward the wrong endzone = heading toward defeat rather than victory (which would have happened without #1).

3. Switching the endzones under his feet = solving his problem for him by a "game-changer" so fundamental, it restructures reality to reverse his mistake.

4. The bulldozer & driver = CC, an Earthpowerful force.

5. The Martian dust = the krill, driven by extreme forces of its own, and supreme coincidence of Sunder/Hollian's situation.

Taking your analogy seriously (I assume it's not only a joke response to my own silly tone), I'm not sure what corresponds to possession of the ball switching sides, nor how the inadequacy of TC's solution was his own fault, remedied miraculously by CC. CC didn't merely make a play within the rules of the game. He fundamentally altered those rules to make victory possible. Your analogy doesn't capture that, thus it doesn't address the problem.

Addressing the non-spoiler points from your spoiler:

....whereas Covenant's spirit appearing at the last battle is a mere Law of Death violation. Covenant may have thought CC's actions helped him there, but I think he was mistaken, particularly since spirits appeared 'unbidden' and laughed Foul out of existence during the First Chronicles.

TC says that breaking the LoL allowed him to act, instead of being merely a spectator like all the land spectors prior to that. That's what allowed him to resist Foul by allowing himself to stand between LF and the Arch, absorbing his attack. (Of course, this presents another contradiction with the 1st Chrons, since Kevin and Elena certainly acted as dead spirits, and not just observed.)

Anyway, if you're right and CC's actions don't really help Covenant here, my overall point works just as well for your spoiled point, I think.

[Orlion]

Checking my copy, it seems to be so.

However.

My analogy was serious (as well jocular ) because it indicates that

1) Covenant could still lose...easily. What was it he said he was afraid of? That Foul would just destroy the Arch without killing him?

2) And even then, Foul just had to tell him to get out of the way and blast the Arch.

The analogy takes all that into account: the change in fortunes, the courage of the underdog team, and the falling apart of the winning team that should still be able to win it. The point being, in that case you would not say anybody cheated.

And still... not all was solved. Linden had to purge the Earthpower, or Foul would be re-energized by the Sunbane!

Really, the only fundamental thing changed, apparently, was that Covenant could act. Kinda like how a regular piece in checkers, once it is kinged, can move in any direction. It's nice, it helps, it is no guarantee of winning the game. As Covenant acknowledged, Foul could have just as easily won.

[Savor Dam]

In my estimation, the difference the breaking of the Law of Life made that is relevant to the end of the 2nd Chrons is that TC opposed Foul via his own volition, as contrasted to Elena and Kevin who were commanded back from death for the purposes they served.

Of the Last Chrons, I do not speak...yet.

[IrrationalSanity]

My, my, my... What short memories we all have.

No D.e.M is required here. Just the reminder that Morham was (prior to becoming High Lord) a Seer and Oracle. Who is to say that his shade, with the perspective of the other side, did not regain that capability? Note that it isn't prophesy, or the ability to foretell precise events, but the knowledge that "hey, if we go down this path, there's a pretty good chance that the Law of Life is going to get broken (at your expense, CC - sorry), and if we let that happen, good will come of it in the long run."

[Orlion]

My, my, my... What short memories we all have.

No D.e.M is required here. Just the reminder that Morham was (prior to becoming High Lord) a Seer and Oracle. Who is to say that his shade, with the perspective of the other side, did not regain that capability? Note that it isn't prophesy, or the ability to foretell precise events, but the knowledge that "hey, if we go down this path, there's a pretty good chance that the Law of Life is going to get broken (at your expense, CC - sorry), and if we let that happen, good will come of it in the long run."

Well shoot, I did forget that... nevermind that the Dead, normally, have this sort of "sight"... let alone a dead Mhoram.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, foreknowledge does solve the coincidence problem. That's plausible. CC and Mhoram could easily compare notes.

But it doesn't resolve the issue of CC correcting TC's path right under his feet, without his knowledge or input. It merely adds the "miracle" of foresight to the "miracle" of magical intervention.

If the rest of you are cool with that, fine. I suppose the problem is me. I no longer like magical solutions to problems that are at the heart personal conflicts. Unless the magic is an expression of the person who has the conflict (like the Staff of Law for Linden or the ring for Covenant), I don't see it as a metaphor, but merely a gimmick.

Anyway, good discussion. I suppose that's all I have to say on the issue.