Real Knowledge

[dlbpharmd]

(sigh) I really don't want to lock a 2nd thread in so many weeks, so I've just been watching - but the arguing has grown tiresome once again. Consider these last posts as the "final word," and let's move on.

[Zarathustra]

I hope addressing actual points isn't too tiresome and is considered "moving on." I have no personal criticisms to make, only rebuttals of points.

" 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.."

But this isn't the emphasis of the Chronicles; it's only one quote. Clearly, the purpose of the Staff is to support linear, objective, rational definitions of time and space (among other things, other aspects of Law). And clearly the Staff was the *emphasis* of book 1 (the quest for the Staff), books 3-6 (all one big quest for a new Staff), book 7 (yet another quest for the Staff), and was featured prominently in almost every other book of all three Chronicles. Clearly, Donaldson's emphasis is on the need for Law, and specifically linear/rational/objective Time. So to say that his emphasis is on a surrealist view of Time seems to ignore how often and how thoroughly his emphasis has been just the opposite.

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

I've included quotes from SRD, and talked about things actually in SRD's text.

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

Yes, that's one example in 10 books of pretense and illusion. Granted, it was a major plot device, because it allowed Linden to become "she who must not forgive," but I don't see illusion and pretense as a major theme of the Chronicles itself, no more than I see pedophilia a major theme just because Lena was raped--it's a plot device to move the characters to the next phase of their arc. If Donaldson wanted to make a larger point about illusion and pretense beyond just a convenient means to move Linden into a place of darkness, the most you could say is that "love can sometimes be misleading." If that's a surrealist point, then fine. Point taken. But I don't think consider this to be one of the main points of the Chronicles. In fact, I'd say that the opposite is SRD's point; namely, that "there is also love in the world," and that allowing ourselves to be true and to love is one of the greatest victories we can achieve in a world where all things are ending.

I have no problem with this series being an exercise in surrealism if that's actually the case. I just don't think you've made your case. Every point you've made for that larger point seems false to me, and I'm explaining why. There's nothing "out of line" with a rebuttal. Your points just aren't convincing. We can either agree to disagree, or you can modify your points in light of my criticism. I'm fine with just thinking that you're wrong. If you can live with that, then we can stop here. Or you can tell me why I'm wrong, in terms that actually address my arguments, and not me personally (as I'm doing with your points).

[lurch]

There is nothing " hidden" in Donaldson's work.

Its there by intent of the author in forms used by writers thru-out the ages.

All and any of us can see if you choose to. Just by saying , " I don't think so",,without using and demonstrating the understanding of the vocabulary involved doesn't give me any impetus to do your home work for you. I'd love to discuss the surreal aspects of the work in further detail, and probably will ,come dissecting. But ,,it seems its easier to say " prove it"..than go and at least get familiar with the vocabulary of Surrealism...If you have no understanding of the subject and its attending vocabulary,,I suggest the right thing to do is simply stay out of the discussion. The arguments being made in this thread against Real Knowledge are not good. There is no demonstrated understanding of the perspective and terms, in them.

I'm not here to argue over every little point. You either see it or you don't. If you see it, great, lets discuss and build.

[Zarathustra]

I don't need personal advice about which discussions to stay out of. I was hoping for a discussion of points, not discussions of people here. If that's not your thing, I don't mind to pick up the slack. I have plenty to say.

I understand your words. Well, most of them. When you say, "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," it's clear you're contrasting this with an objective view of Space and Time. It's clear you're making a claim about the text. And then you're using these two claims as evidence that the mode of story-telling in this book is surrealist. Now, even if I don't know as much about surrealism as you, I do know quite a lot about subjectivity vs objectivity, especially how they relate to Space/Time, and I've read these books enough to be familiar with the author's treatment of the subjects. There is plenty of common ground here for a discussion between curious and thoughtful people.

Donaldson himself addresses the importance of these concepts in the GI, when describes the Arch of Time (i.e. the framework and context of his fictional world):

I simply don’t have (and perhaps the people of the Land don’t have) a better way to refer to what is actually a *process*; or a set of on-going rules or mechanics which simultaneously enable things like bchronology and consecutiveness (without which life as we know it would be impossible, and the Earth of “The Chronicles” would certainly cease to exist) and prevent things like wandering through eternity, or being everywhere at once, or even being in two places at once. My best analogy is the act of storytelling. “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant” would be gibberish if I didn’t abide by a number of rules (like the Law of Time), some of which are so obvious that we don’t even think about them. Like sequence, linearity: sentences don’t actually mean anything unless the words are arranged in a very specific order. If you change the order, you change the meaning. And if you remove “order” itself, you remove all meaning. *That*, in its simplest terms, is the Arch of Time. It both imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE.

(03/15/2006)

Given that his entire fictional world rests within a framework he describes in terms of "rules" and "mechanisms," stressing how these enable consecutive and linear treatments of Time and Space, without which his entire fictional creation crumbles, I think that his emphasis for Time and Space are abundantly clear ... and subjective is not part of that.

It's of even greater relevance to this discussion that he compares the very mechanical and linear structure of his world to the process of story-telling itself ... so that we have here an explicit connection between his treatment of Space/Time and his conception of telling stories--a point you were trying to make, as well. It turns out that you were right about being able to deduce the mode of story-telling from the emphasis and characterization of Space and Time in the story ... only that you got it backwards. SRD considers story-telling itself to be an other example of a process that happens within a "mechanical" and "linear" framework, without which it would have no meaning. In fact, the meaning itself would be eroded or erased by a nonlinear language (a point which contradicts your claim that this work de-emphasizes "logical linear of reason methods").

And then Donaldson ends his analogy with what could arguably be called "Real Knowledge," that this set of rules/mechanisms/linearity "imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE." That's an existential truth, right there. Perhaps you mean something different by "Real Knowledge," but it doesn't get any more real than that. Time and Space are the ontological structures which frame our existence, which we can perceive in ontic instances of subjective participation, but the author certainly doesn't place any emphasis on that subjective element, and doesn't give Space/Time the heave ho. By the end of the story, the Arch is intact ... as it should be.

I can't believe that any of this is irrelevant to your points. It seems to bear directly on them.

[lurch]

Sorry dude..again..you go off on tangents that are based on not understanding.. Nobody is saying Time and Space don't exist.. except Donaldson in the epilogue at that moment. The author has his characters BREAK THE LAWS...and yet the story continues..amazing..how did he do that without the whole world jumping up and screaming hypocrit!!..
Please,,I say..subjective..not ,,not existent..Nice strawman argument tho. Suspension of disbelief is something a lot of readers do.
I do not have to prove any thing to you. You are not in a position to be taken serious enough to be " proven "to. I do not post here to meet your wishy washy standards of Judging.. I am not compelled to prove any thing to you ,,who when given proof,,your ontologicalness, dismisses 260 plus pages of the authors work as Not Good Enough ,,not Enough... Sorry,,I'm not playing with somebody who who just wants to argue... I 'm here to post and expand on the authors work..

[shadowbinding shoe]

Z - What you say is true but we should concede that these laws of storytelling and life are under siege and break down completely by the end of both AATE (in the Covenant chapters) and TLD though personally the first felt much more surrealistic. So SRD ideal laws are under siege in this series. In a broader sense in all of his books, chaos and ruin of immesurable amounts threaten the heroes and their world from all sides. I'm not sure if I would label this surrealism. Aside from the Joan plot line at the end of AATE was the rest definitevely surrealistic? But is this existensialism either? The hopeful victory scenes at the end of his books aren't exactly Camus material. The stragle is not realy hopeless. The death of the universe CAN be undone.

[lurch]

A mistake made by a lot is ..that Surrealism is this thing.. that it fits within a nice easily defined and thus predictable box... As close I as I dare put Donaldson's TCoTC to Surrealism ,,is..that its a work of Donaldson's Surrealism. Surrealism is all about the Individual , not a boxed and packaged concept art. TCoTC is , to me,,a Donaldson Expression done in Surreal style. As already posted, Donaldson hits on quite a few of the Surreal tenets in TCoTC. The " how" he does it may not be the easiest to perceive. Yet, I contend that the author brings it closer and closer to the surface as he progresses thru the story..or as he puts it..works towards the end that he already knows. The message is the Metaphor.

[shadowbinding shoe]

A little off topic but isn't Mordant's Need more surrealistic than any of the TCOTC?

[lurch]

I wouldn't say " more" but, yea, the juxtaposition of two realities vying for Teresa's ,," attention" with a 3rd reality, Love, winning in the end can be seen as a work in Surrealism. Its been quite a while tho.

[Zarathustra]

SS, there are some hopeful existentialists. My sig contains a quote from one. The idea of absolute meaning must be tore down first, before one can accept the responsibility of building up a personal meaning from the rubble of that "idol." So that certainly doesn't mean you stop at nihilism. That's just a necessary transition stage. Kind of like the destruction of the Arch.

I'd agree with you that the laws are under assault, and in this much surrealism does creep in, but it's always something to be resisted ... rather than the point or emphasis.

A lot of people see Christian symbolism in this story, too. But (in my opinion) that's because this is an anti-Christian story. [The Creator did not save them; they saved themselves.] In the same way, others see surrealism in a story where the characters consider it their life's chief work to resist surrealist interpretations (i.e. giving up the question of "real vs unreal" as missing the point of finding your own meaning) or surrealist "consequences" (i.e. corruption of Law).

So for me, to say this work is either Christian or surrealist misses the point, and in fact inverts the point to mean its opposite.

[slickthomas]

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.

Somewhere else in the GI, he also admitted he was scared of the Last Chrons but knew he finally had to do it now or he wouldn't get it done before he died.

I always felt the reasons you stated were his justification to make himself feel better and that fear was the real reason he waited so long.

I don't want to argue the point because it depends on the weight each of us puts on different statements he has made across the years. None of us really know (and maybe SRD doesn't himself).