Real Knowledge

[lurch]

Somewhere early on during the Last Chronicles..it was asked of Donaldson , why did he embark on the Last Chronicles? His reply being, he knew he had to do it, but it was something that demanded Time before he could do it. The author's emphasis on Real Knowledge thru-out the Last Series, heck, even his " see ya later " in the epilogue, answers the question perhaps more poetically. The Last Chrons had to be experienced before it could be written. The Real Knowledge of Experience was required in order to write The Last Chrons.

To have realized that earlier on in his life is noteworthy. To say to ones self.." I'm not ready"..implies that the author had a goal, a target in mind, but realized he couldn't get there by using logic and reason. The path to where he wanted to go was not linear. Like a balloon or ball, he had to fill out as a person.

Overall the complexity of the work manifests a real knowledge. Every thing upside down and inside out from the get go , more extremes than either of the earlier works all the way to parental guidance of a little schitt of the ordinary teen age boy full of pretense, are just two easy examples of a writer writing from Real Knowledge. Of course the authors mastery of the English Language is one reason he is a joy to read but yet, by TLD, his Themes seems more accessible, easier perceived thru the motifs or leitmotifs of the work. Perhaps a maturation there. The idea of..to simplify rather than dazzle with the same message.

Fascinating ,,that at end,,the author has TC saying " They " are too dangerous and must go learn about their new found knowledge,,make it real. With out telling us so much all about what that new knowledge is..the author tells us about the " How" of it. No,,its not something logically deducted, reasonably surmised. Its a How you live a life rather than a What.Its a Trust in a Hope and Love .

[shadowbinding shoe]

I'm not sure what knowledge he sought to acquire before writing this series and I'm familiar enough with his personal life to know, but didn't he know fatherhood earlier than the beginning of this series?

About the unearned knowledge, I can't imagine a more extensive and dangerous use of it than recreating a creation from its fragments. If they did that well, if they didn't botch a sea with a desert or the composition of soil or the proper size of grains of sand or any number of other factors that goes into a properly functioning world, I don't see how their knowledge can be unreal or dangerous.

[lurch]

..The author did dedicate Fatal Revenant ..." To Ross Donaldson: my son, in whom I am well pleased "
I think that serves to make the challenges of Parenting connected to this series specifically. Jeremiah was not in the other two series.
Again, the author does not go into any specifics of the Knowledge except to say,,it makes them dangerous. The knowledge is left unknown because that isn't the point. Its the approach to it, the How rather than the what.

[shadowbinding shoe]

..The author did dedicate Fatal Revenant ..." To Ross Donaldson: my son, in whom I am well pleased "
I think that serves to make the challenges of Parenting connected to this series specifically. Jeremiah was not in the other two series.
Again, the author does not go into any specifics of the Knowledge except to say,,it makes them dangerous. The knowledge is left unknown because that isn't the point. Its the approach to it, the How rather than the what.

The point is they already used it and I can't imagine a more dangrous venue than the one they did. The ways in which the making of a world can be bungled are endless.

[lurch]

I don't think so..Each used whatever they had , independently, against Foul. At end all are in white robe and going off to study with a Acolyte Insequent on all the new gained Knowledge.. They had become Untied, Hope, Love and Compassion,,Thomas, Linden Jeremiah . I really don't get the bungled ways are endless,,out of the read.. unless you refer to the past. The end is creating a future from Hope and Love rather than creating a future that just repeats the past.Perfection isn't even hinted at..Its the Power of being Unified, Whole, that is to be learned and appreciated. And yes, one has to die first,,let go of the olde ways of thinking and perceiving,,in order to rise to glory reinvented, remade.

[Zarathustra]

I didn't really see much "real knowledge" on display in the story. I wouldn't have thought it would take someone decades to realize that mothers love their children (sometimes to the extreme--as Pink Floyd was able to sufficiently describe in a 4 minute song). Or that ex-wives can be a pain in the ass. Or that teenagers can be snotty. If it took Donaldson years to acquire this real knowledge, the evidence of this extensive journey isn't on the page. If there were deeper insights in the text that we've all missed, feel free to point them out to us. But if they can only be summed up in single capitalized words (e.g. "Hope," "Love,") it only seems to make my point here. Those are Ideals, not real knowledge. They are abstract concepts, not living/breathing/experiential truths. Absolutely nothing about the Last Chronicles connected with any of my own experiences as a 41 year old man with a family. Allowing your son and ex-wife to die (or killed by your own hand) while you're busy making alliances with swamp tentacles and absorbing your dark side aren't struggles that speak to my own human experience. To me, the ending (or the point?) of the LC seems just the opposite of real knowledge ... it seems like a formula decided decades ago, and then not given enough thought to flesh it out and make it real.

If this is what Real looks like, I prefer the "fakes" of the first two Chronicles. They seemed a lot more more real to me.

[lurch]

I can't believe you actually say...hope and love are ideals.. not living breathing experiental truths... Okay, for you, that may be true, but I'm here to say there are plenty folks who experience Hope and Love first hand on a frequent enough basis to say both are Real.. wow.a mothers love sufficiently described in a 4 minute Pink Floyd song..whoooweee. Donaldson is not POP..imho.

Linden goes from, I'll do anything to find and get my Jeremiah back,,to , thats it, I've had enough of the slaughter and killing ..no mas..The experience and knowledge of what she had to do,,to back up her words, eventually revolted her and haunts her still in the epilogue. Real Knowledge.

The metaphor of Jeremiah seems centered in the word,,Pretense. When we first meet him in the Land, he is an illusion,,a false hood being put forth as a fact. How the author twists that and thereby continues the metaphor of Jeremiah as he struggles with being a non experienced 15 year old was fun to watch. Something any person of any age needs to be aware of about themselves. Pretense is kind of the opposite of Real Knowledge...and it wasn't until Jeremiah saw his mothers horrific past did he gain compassion and start growing up.

Also..you are in no position to enforce telling me what to do. So I recommend that you don't .I don't need you or anybody else to tell me to..feel free..I'm laying stuff out there as only a start,,as only a choice. I don't post here to argue ...I post here to start on a observation. To build on it and see where it goes, thats the fun...Is Fun one of those " ideals",,abstracts" in your universe?. Why you and others come in to say just the opposite of what I post, ..seems so easy. Its not about right wrong,,true false,,yes no..Its about here is shade of grey. lets see how its connected to all the other shades of grey.

Enjoy your fakes

[TheFallen]

[Start IMHO]

Isn't it just a smidgeon ironic to go on about the validation of the ideals of capitalized "Hope, Love and Compassion" (sic) that you've found in the LCs (about which I'm genuinely pleased for you, btw) - but then immediately get a little waspish, presumably just because someone has expressed a differing opinion and doesn't see what you do, no?

As I've opined before, Art evokes a personal response that is by necessity subjective. It's bound de naturis to be coloured by the personality and life experiences of the individual responder. Ergo, all responses and all opinions are equally valid. Art's open to interpretation, not bound by a single dogma. On that basis, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else is in any position to define what may or may not be valid, or "fun" or "fakes" to anyone else. For all your vaunted claim not to want to "argue", I'm afraid that your post above reads a little inflammatory.

This forum used to be just a teensy tad more positive and less defensive...

[End IMHO]

[lurch]

problem.....When was the last time you went to a Art gallery or Museum.?.Did you see folks standing infront of a painting and proclaiming how it sucked,,how it didn't meet any expectations,? No. Sarcastic animosity..?? I'm being nice here..

Ironic? nice false comparison there. ...That I found??? Did you read the same book that I did? The author is talkin Love within the 2nd paragraph of the first chapter...TC constantly clings to Hope in his dire circumstances. Its the only thing hes got. I found?..The author has Hope and Love out there as big and as profound as a Bill Board. Holy cow!!

No..not all responses are valid to the frame of reference that the Work is presented in. The 65 year old author didn't write the Last Chronicles as the life and times of a 41 yr old married with children. We rise to the Art, the art doesn't lower itself to our level. Alls I have read is how ..i can't relate to any of it...I'm okay with that sentiment..But as i go thru my experiences and observations of the work..what do I get..over and over again the same sentiment from the same people..I can't relate to that so it can't be true...What a load of Pretense. If it isn't relating to you..just maybe..just maybe..its You that needs to change.Now,,why is that such a big deal?,,something to be argued about? I can keep going with new observations and thoughts for quite awhile,,but it seems everytime,,theres a poster saying the same olde stuff over and over.

and that pleasant comment...WHATTT!!??..Every one of my post s....naaa, never mind...Your "pleasant " comment verges on Trolling....is a very sad comment to have been made...imho..

[TheFallen]

problem.....When was the last time you went to a Art gallery or Museum.?.Did you see folks standing infront of a painting and proclaiming how it sucked,,how it didn't meet any expectations,? No.

It's not an ideal comparison, since museums and art galleries tend to deal with the already known. It's a lot more relevant when it comes to literature or music. Ever heard someone say that xxx's last album sucked compared to his earlier stuff? Ever heard anyone say that they found poet yyy's later work poor in comparison?

Yes, I get that you're convinced that the ideals of Hope and Love are at the heart of the LCs. That's fine and I'd personally not gainsay you in the most generalistic of terms.

Alls I have read is how ..i can't relate to any of it...I'm okay with that sentiment..But as i go thru my experiences and observations of the work..what do I get..over and over again the same sentiment from the same people..I can't relate to that so it can't be true...What a load of Pretense. If it isn't relating to you..just maybe..just maybe..its You that needs to change.Now,,why is that such a big deal?,,something to be argued about?

It's very simple as to why. It risks coming across as "holier than thou" and patronising. Why is it inevitably "a pretense" - note the pejorative - if someone states that they don't get from the book the same things you do? Why is the response evoked in them "less true"? Are you saying that they're lying? Or less intelligent? That their reaction is less worthy? I trust not...

There's no harm in people expressing an honest opinion that they don't relate to the same themes and subliminals that you do. It absolutely does not mean that they "need to change", any more than it means you're hallucinating when you see said themes and subliminals and so you "need to change".

The statement "I can't relate to that which you do within x, ergo it's not true for me", or equally "I relate to different things than you within x, but they're still equally as true for me" are both entirely valid, surely? It's about respecting the validity of the opinions of others. By all means, it's great to have a variety of opinions and responses expressed and backed up with the reasons for such. But it's really not so good to dismiss the validity of the opinions of others.

[shadowbinding shoe]

I don't think so..Each used whatever they had , independently, against Foul. At end all are in white robe and going off to study with a Acolyte Insequent on all the new gained Knowledge.. They had become Untied, Hope, Love and Compassion,,Thomas, Linden Jeremiah . I really don't get the bungled ways are endless,,out of the read.. unless you refer to the past. The end is creating a future from Hope and Love rather than creating a future that just repeats the past.Perfection isn't even hinted at..Its the Power of being Unified, Whole, that is to be learned and appreciated. And yes, one has to die first,,let go of the olde ways of thinking and perceiving,,in order to rise to glory reinvented, remade.

I had to take some time to digest your assertions. They took me by surprise and I felt I needed to see what you said elsewhere in this forum to fully understand you.

I haven't thought of Covenant as exemplifying Hope. He's pep-talks tend to be so harsh and demanding but hope is by no means hasto be soft and kindhearted. Still, isn't there even more Love than Hope in him not to mention Compassion! He's got compassion to the least likely characters: Haruchai, Lurker, Foul. Linden as exemplifying Love, but also doubt and by God, Determination and relentlessness I can easily see. Jeremiah as Compassion is problematic on the other hand. Sure, he has moment of empathy with Longwrath and his mother's childhood but I didn't find his emotions there in any way extraordinary.

When they rebuild Creation, they do it together, not as separate forces, so if what they need to learn is how to combine, didn't they do it already? I guess the only thing they haven't learned so far is restraint? Learning how to live within their own Creation without oppressively controling it (the necessity of freedom). Covenant also needs to come to terms with Despite apparently, which means he hasn't really reached his epithany, merely attempted it?

[lurch]

Square peg...round hole... Thats why... and thanks for editing your "comment" We rise to the Art, the Art doesn't come down to our level. Valid is fine until its not.

[TheFallen]

Yes but who's got the right to claim they are the only one to know the shape of the peg? Or the hole?

To my mind, they'll look very different to different individuals, dependent upon the angle they're viewed from...

Nuff said on this. I can't explain it any more simply.

[lurch]

Fallen..the author certainly does..He doesn't just grab a bunch of words and throw them up in the air and sees where they land..There is a thing called thematic detection..So here we are all the way back to that.

If the work repeatedly emphasizes the subjectivity of Space and Time and by end..actually gives the Space and Time a Heave Ho,as no longer applicable..you just mite be reading a piece done in Surrealism. If there is a marked emphasis on the circular, spherical intuitive way of perceiving and thinking and a de-emphasis on the logical linear of reason methods,,then just maybe you are reading a work in Surrealism. If Personal identity issues keeps popping up..you just mite be reading apiece done in Surrealism..If Illusion and Pretense surface thru out the story,,you just mite be involved with a piece done in Surrealism and..if there occurrences of sly dark humor laced along the story's traverse,,you just mite reading a work done in Surrealism and if there are Metaphors galore,,that work and sustain the Theme of the story,,consider you just may be deep in a Surreal piece...Now..if ALL of the above is evident in the story or Series,,then I'd say you definitely involved in a Surreal Work..
So..if one is going to critique ...it might be nice to see some of the vocabulary,,some the comparisons,,some of the experiences with other works in Surrealism...When I don't see the Real Knowledge..I think thats justifiable doubt of any critiquers observations..Square Peg, Round Hole...

Shoe...There is a subtle suggestion that the rebuilding of The Land..is an ongoing never ending circumstance..like a garden or even like our tastes..We change, re arrange,,reinvent once again. So,,a final finality isn't being suggested here especially in the epilogue...its..well we got to go learn ...Perhaps a future of constant learning is suggested by the author..Learning about ourselves our world around us, Life and holding on to what is True for us and letting go of what isn't ..is Life and its okay. An open mind and heart to the Unknown, what must be Learned, filled with Hope and Love will create a future for the individual that is more rewarding than a future of simply repeating a past.. Learning is forever.IMHO anyway..

TC's Hope is quite evident in the Despise'ers lair . Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse,,it did,,repeatedly..That was Hope he was clinging on to.

[Zarathustra]

If the work repeatedly emphasizes the subjectivity of Space and Time and by end..actually gives the Space and Time a Heave Ho,as no longer applicable..you just mite be reading a piece done in Surrealism.

I don't think this work emphasizes subjectivity of Space and Time. If anything, it emphasizes these concepts as rigid, objective, Lawful constructs without which there could be no life whatsoever. It emphasizes the linear, rigid structure of Time to such a degree, that it symbolizes this need for linear objectivity by placing the main character as a metaphorical Guardian of this Arch--the destruction of which is The Worst Thing Ever ... rather than the point.

Nearly every time the objective, Lawful, linear Time is stretched, broken, or distorted, this is portrayed as a corruption of Law--i.e. not the way things are supposed to be. Law is a *good* thing in this series, one of the Greatest Good Things, which people must defend with their lives and their choices.

This is an indictment of surrealism, if anything. Just as it is an indictment that man is a futile passion. Wanting to escape Time is the futile passion. And portraying Time as subjective and nonlinear are down that path of escapism. Indeed, the caesures (i.e. nonlinear distortions of space) are Lord Foul's way of attacking the way things are Supposed to Be (i.e. Law), in his inauthentic attempt to break the fetters of linear Time.

If there is a marked emphasis on the circular, spherical intuitive way of perceiving and thinking and a de-emphasis on the logical linear of reason methods,,then just maybe you are reading a work in Surrealism.

The circularity I've noticed in the Chrons comes with the ring metaphor, not as a model of reasoning. I'm not even sure what spherical thinking/perceiving its. However, you are correct that there is an emphasis on intuitive thinking, as opposed to strictly rational. But that's more a function of this being fantasy, as opposed to science fiction. If fantasy and surrealism share this emphasis, it doesn't mean that all fantasy (or novels with intuition) are surreal. So I'd emphasize the "maybe" in your quote.

If Personal identity issues keeps popping up..you just mite be reading apiece done in Surrealism..

Isn't that just character-driven story-telling? Combined with metaphors for specific parts of people's character?

If Illusion and Pretense surface thru out the story,,you just mite be involved with a piece done in Surrealism

Illusion? Pretense? I think you really got to stretch to find examples of those. This is a story that dispenses with the question of reality and illusion, and deems it not as important as our necessity to create meaning nonetheless. I would think that a surrealist book would explore the murky division between dream and reality, rather than have the characters flat-out deny the significance of the question. Again, this is an indictment of surrealism, not an endorsement or example of it.

and..if there occurrences of sly dark humor laced along the story's traverse,,you just mite reading a work done in Surrealism

I didn't notice much sly dark humor. Are you talking about (for instance) "jugs" joke you thought was intended in AATE? I did note some dick jokes in this book, but I wouldn't call any of these sly or dark. More juvenile, than anything.

and if there are Metaphors galore,,that work and sustain the Theme of the story,,consider you just may be deep in a Surreal piece...Now..if ALL of the above is evident in the story or Series,,then I'd say you definitely involved in a Surreal Work..

I whole-heartedly give you that one. But again, in the author's own words, this is a characteristic of Epic Fantasy (which is what *he* calls what he writes, not surrealism). What's wrong with using the author's own description?

In addition, if you search the Gradual Interview for "surrealism," you won't find much. There's basically one post:

I can't think of anything useful to say about what you've called the "reality quotient" of various genres. As far as I'm concerned, there's an extremely flexible continuum between fiction which attempts to mirror consensus reality exactly ("slice of life realism") and fiction which attempts to reinvent virtually every aspect of consensus reality (sometimes including language itself). At one extreme, I think of writers like Zola and Dreiser. At the other--well, the only name that occurs to me (as being sufficiently extreme) is Butor, who once (or so I'm told) wrote a "novel" where the reader was expected to shuffle the pages before reading them. (Perhaps I should content myself with a surrealist like Beckett.) Everything else--including fantasy, s/f, horror, mystery, romance, "magic realism," western, historical, even most mainstream--falls somewhere in between. Exactly *where* in between depends on what a particular writer is trying to accomplish in a particular story.

In other words, I'm afraid that this is a situation in which you'll have to find your own path. After all, all of the best writers are "sui generis": each of them occupies a niche entirely his/her own.


(08/13/2007)

So, if we take his resistance to being pigeon-holed in the "reality quotient" question--indeed, his emphasis on all literature falling within this spectrum--along with his own description of his work as Epic Fantasy, the evidence in the text for the position that questioning the difference between reality/illusion missing the point, and the fact that objective/rigid/linear Time and Space are "Good" and anything else is "corruption of Law," then I think there is a powerful case that surrealism is not what he was attempting. I think it deeply misses the point.

One final question ... would you consider Lord of the Rings surrealist? It fits the criteria you've listed at least as well as the Chronicles.

[lurch]

Oh god..Its clear as day now that you and I have not read the same book..nor series...I guess I got the " special editions"...

" The three figures luminous as spectres did not feel distance. They did not notice time. They had done what they could to answer their own questions and were free of impatience.."

Why is always..lurch says?...and not..Donaldson says??

did you even read and comprehend the Illusion of Jerry and TC in FR..??..stretch??

Excuse me,,we've been thru this before..its the same olde game..I gave all links to increase any ones understanding of Surrealism then as I have done again here recently,,I can tell how much good that did,,and then for you,,yes you Z, to come around once again and say..O please do show us what we missed... You've had over three years to educate and prepare your self and I can tell..you didn't..but there you are ..its every thing I say..and not a damn thing on what Donaldson says.. I'm not playing Z.. I gave you ways to Real Knowledge back then and give ways now..Since you have obviously chosen not to ...then you really are out of line here. Somewhere along the line You Have to Help Your Self if you want Real Knowledge..You totally missed SRD's point in the reality quotient quote..because you don't understand the basics of Surrealism.. stop digging..

[TheFallen]

*Sigh*

You've had over three years to educate and prepare your self and I can tell..you didn't..but there you are ..its every thing I say..and not a damn thing on what Donaldson says.. I'm not playing Z.. I gave you ways to Real Knowledge back then and give ways now..Since you have obviously chosen not to ...then you really are out of line here. Somewhere along the line You Have to Help Your Self if you want Real Knowledge.

So, you're:

a) Maintaining that Z - and by implication anyone else not toeing your interpretative line - is "uneducated" (!)

b) Insisting again in messianic fashion that you, and only you, can point out the path to "Real Knowledge" (!!!) (And capitalised "Real Knowledge" at that! Damn but that "Knowledge" must really be "Real", then! I'll take two!)

Lurch, I get that you fervently believe in your view on the LCs. Nothing wrong with that. But fercrissakes, don't you see even the faintest whiff of supercilious arrogance in your quote above? Why will you not allow anyone to have a differing take on the LCs, which are after all entirely open to interpretation, given their heavy symbolism? Why do you invariably present yourself effectively as some kind of guru uniquely able to point the way to the sole epiphanic "Real Truth"? It's tantamount to patronising interpretative fascism and I'm quite literally gob-smacked if you cannot recognise this in your post above - and others of yours in similar vein.

To go back to your "square peg, round hole" comment, the only person who could actually possibly know the shapes of the peg and the hole, i.e. what he intended the LCs to be definitively on about, is the author himself. As a side note, intention doesn't invariably lead to success, but never mind. Anyhow I strongly doubt that SRD has shared his intentions with you. So, it's all guesswork on our parts, to a greater or lesser extent.

Me? I've got my own interpretation as posted elsewhere - based as it happens upon direct SRD quotes pointing at schools of psychology as being the key to the LCs - but hey, so what? I'm sensible enough to know that my take is only an interpretation. Yes, I don't particularly agree with you and I don't particularly agree with Z. But crucially that doesn't matter at all. It's just my interpretation... it's just my entirely valid personal response to the LCs. Just like yours is just yours and Z's is just Z's.

Y'see, the difference here is, whereas I may be happy with my interpretation on the LCs and think that I "get it" and whereas I may therefore find differing takes less apposite and relevant to me, I would not be presumptuous enough to call those other differing takes wrong. They're neither wrong nor inapposite nor irrelevant to those whose interpretations they are. Okay, so I think I've "got" the LCs right... for me and not necessarily for anyone else at all. Who am I then to mock whatever else has been evoked in someone by a work of literature? Who am I to pooh-pooh a differing message that someone else has seen in the LCs? Who am I to belittle someone else's honestly held and felt reaction?

Sadly you on the other hand promptly dismiss any interpretation that doesn't mirror your own as blind or worse, "uneducated". There could be no more stark an example of pure hubris, I'm afraid.

Live and let live a little, huh? It'd make for a far more pleasant environment...

[lurch]

Again..you got it wrong and show what your real beef is..its me,not Donaldson.

Its okay to say your experience with the books are not same as mine.. I have no problem with that.. Yet , that is not an approval to go into a thread and start arguing because its not your experience...Where the heck is the decency to just stay out of the conversation if you can't relate to it?? Just because a discussion is out side of your experience or knowledge doesn't give anyone the right to come in and say it ain't so.. I have no problem with individual interpertations,,but I have a problem with posters coming into threads generated by myself and sayin it ain't so,,without a clue to the vocabulary of the subject. If you can't relate to what I say..why you feel threatened is not my concern..Thats your problem I . I don't have issues until there is offense made in a Thread of my origin. I post here to build, help and expand on what I observe of Donaldsons work..I don't post here because my precious Me Me needs validating and defending against the evil forces of the world.

Ahhmmm..yea,,I listened to Donaldson 's overview during the last elohimfest..Yea, STephen Donaldson rite there 10 feet away talking about his work and then a q&A session afterwards...Of course more famous posters were also there. ....So,,I am having no problems discussion TCoTC as I do . I have no fears of ever contradicting his core message.

I've read all of the Gradual Interview. Again,,I have no fear of ever contradicting SRD as I discuss his work here.

But that still doesn't give me the right to go into somebody elses thread and say they are full of it because its not my experience...Oh..wait a minute...did the deed to Kevin's Watch change hands while I was gone?

Fascinating thing is...I don't read your, Z's and a few others generated threads. The few I have, left me with little positive to say. So I stay out. Yet some how you both are compelled to come into my thread and do your damndest to derail and sidetrack the discussion..If ya can't relate to what I say..then stay out of it.

Mock,,PooPoo..??..no,,you aren't getting away with that. Fallen. If you are going to critique,,then you better use the appropriate vocabulary. If I'm talking oranges, its not smart to challenge cuz alls you kno is Apples. I'm not "mocking "or " poo pooing" because of your Apples.. I just pointing out that you are making a mistake in your comparison technique. . You and yours keep trying to put square peg in to a round hole...and then lay blame on the failure..on me. If any wants to criticize my posts on Oranges,,then talk Orange, not Apples.

Nobody is threatening to take your precious Apples away from you.Post about them all you want. I can't stop you and I won't.

Just be courteous and open minded or just,, controlled enough to simply ignore when i post about the Oranges. I kno I will appreciate it and I believe the web site will appreciate it to.

Again..oh so many times I've said this here.....The real truth, REAL KNOWLEDGE is YOU..Surrealism is ABOUT YOU..Its about YOUR Imagination and Creativity, Its about how YOU are defined By YOUR Successes with your creativity, Its about WHO YOU ARE..not about who lurch is...You would know that if you spent 10 -15 20 minutes reading up on the original Surrealism. But no..its patronizing interpretive fascism because its coming from lurch.. Donaldson writes about YOUR Humanity,,and if thats outside of your experiences,,then just stay out of the conversation. ..No presence IS better than negative presence.

[shadowbinding shoe]

This tiffing context is going nowhere.

Anyway I'm still not sure how this whole necessity for real earned knowledge works when the trio (primarily Jeremiah) can still use their unearned knowledge to repair the Creation. Is the necessity to earn knowledge unconnected to a character's ability to use it anyway? Would their actions come to naught if they won't earn their knowledge post haste?

The possibility that the Worm will be reawakened anytime soon seems remote. The whole structure of creation here is very worm-eating-its-own-tail-ish. The worm ate all the power in the creation and now it's back in the skies (and in Melenkurion? it must be one of the places destroyed beyond repair by the Worm, or is it?) I now envision the Worm as more a Caterpillar, of a butterfly or maybe a moth and Creation as its coccon. But The amalgamation of Despite is far less certain thereby leading to the possibility of the moral destruction of the recreation. So maybe that is where the knowledge must be earned. Without it Despite will be back to his old games and wreck everything in some new and inventive way, probably using the trio as his tools.

On that note, what qualifies an Insequent to be their guide? I guess I can see the earning of profound external abilities as a connecting point but wouldn't the demondim-spawn be better choices still? They took on a new calling but this is important as well and as they say, the best way to gain proficiency and connection to abilities is by utilizing them and helping the new forestals to reinstate foresthood to Creation seem a very good way for them to do that.

Who is this Acolyte anyway? Is he a new Insequent that has become an Acolyte to the three good insequent or is he actually the product of those three in some way? If he is indeed young and new in his ways could we have mistaken this plot point and in actuality the Acolyte is not there to teach them things but to learn them, thereby teaching them what their powers truly are (the best way to (l)earn something is to teach them to someone new)

[TheFallen]

Lurch, you obviously have a view that radically differs from mine as to what a discussion is. I tend to believe that it should be an enriching exchange of ideas, even if the end result is "let's agree to differ". For example, I find the following to be a one-way and therefore sterile lecture, rather than any sort of a discussion:

Poster A: I've found the hidden meaning! I see A, B and C within X and here's why.

Poster B: Really? That's interesting, because I see D, E and F within X instead and here's why.

Poster A: How can you be so blind??? Well, you just don't get it. So you must obviously be unenlightened and insufficiently educated. And anyway, it's my podium and don't you forget it!

On that basis, you're correct. It's clearly pointless for anyone with a counter-view to post in any of your threads and it is so noted.

Just be courteous and open minded

"Physician, heal thyself."

I'll therefore leave you to your arid lecture hall. Chacun à son goût, I suppose - maybe joy is also in the mouth that spouts, even if the ears are blocked?