The Last Dark Ending: The Real World Slips Away

[Zarathustra]

I had also proposed that one of the purposes of Linden Avery in the Second Chronicles was to carry something back that Covenant could not, and thus meet the requirement.

And that, in the Final Chronicles, Donaldson had the license to forgo the requirement because he had already established sufficient connection. After all, he by admission doesn't like to write the same story every time.

If you admit that he's not writing the same story every time, and that's the basis of your rationalization that it was "okay" for him to diverge from the expectation that Covenant "needed to carry something back with him," [connecting the story back to reality, I assume], then I'm confused by your attempts to say that there weren't sufficient differences this time to justify the complaints some of our expectations being undermined. In fact, your argument thus far seems to have been aimed at denying the significance or even the existence of major differences in how this story unfolded. I've even expressed my confusion, asking how people could fail to see these differences. But suddenly the fact that he's not "writing the same story" seems significant enough for you to it to justify yet another defense of the Last Chronicles.

Just to be clear: you ARE admitting there are signficant changes this time, right? If so, it's good to get agreement at least on this one point. Perhaps we can build from there.

One glaring difference this time is that fact that Donaldson is no longer concerned with "carrying something back," in your words, which is the very subject of this thread. But it's no longer sufficient to say that Linden serves this purpose, because she's now just part of the process of leaving behind the real world. If carrying something back was so important that we needed the addition of a new real-world character to perform this duty, why wouldn't it be also important now?

[wayfriend]

Zarathustra, saying that one aspect of the story doesn't seem very different to me in degree is not "denying the significance or even the existence of major differences". That's unfair, and a sleight - please stop painting me as someone who doesn't tolerate different opinions.

[Mr.Land]

Thank you Wayfriend. I will enjoy reading your post.

[PastorChris]

What are we to make of Donaldson's comment that their could be no other outcome other than all of the real world characters dying.

I think I see SRD's point. It seems to me there are only two established ways to translate someone from our world to the Land: by some act associated with the Creator, or by some machination of Lord Foul. The former translations involve some invocation of Law (or love), while the latter require Despite (or destruction).

TC's first arrival is, presumably, brought about directly by the Creator. His second is by the Staff of Law. The third is done by Mhoram, who realizes that his success relies heavily on TC's proximity to death. Triock and Foamfollower achieve the fourth by similar means. I would argue that numbers three and four are still grounded in love, so TC's death isn't required, but his proximity to death is necessary in the absence of the Staff or the Creator.

I think Hile Troy's translation (taking for granted he was actually from our world) was permanent because it was grounded in Atiaran's Despair and in her death.

TC's fifth translation is not an act of the Creator or of a Law-abiding Land person. It is the work of Despite, and clearly requires destruction and murder. Linden's translation, I would argue, is an act of the Creator. By this reasoning, she can return and he cannot.

Linden's second translation is achieved by Foul, so by precedents set in the earlier works, her death is necessary. There is no possible return.

Jeremiah's situation appears outwardly different, but I think still works. His first translation is not physical, but spiritual. It may even have something to do with good being achieved by evil means. By this I mean that Foul's machinations 10 years earlier somehow tied Jeremiah to the Land (bonfire/hand), which would be a work of evil. Yet, Linden's pure and devoted love for him enables him, through the gift of the racetracks, to effect the spiritual translation. It may also be that TC's oneness with the Arch and Linden's loving creation of the new Staff also aided in this.

Jeremiah's physical translation, however, may have required death--Despite--either because of the apparent inaction of the Creator, or because Foul had already marked him. I am uncertain on this point.

At any rate, I think SRD established in the 1st and 2nd Chronicles the means by which travel to the Land works, and by that, there is no return home for Linden and Jeremiah.


-------------
As a bit of an aside, I also have this crazy idea that Jeremiah somehow embodies the Creator--note his power, which is fundamentally a Creative force--and through J the Creator has, in a sense, found a way past the Arch to help save (or damn) the Land. Since Jeremiah's power seems largely indirect, this could be, but mostly I'm just musing.

[wayfriend]

Interesting points, PC. I am reminded of Donaldson's comments in the Gradual Interview.

... But neither Troy nor Covenant actually died in the Land: rather they were transformed; became beings of an entirely different kind. In Troy's case, a series of transformations were involved, resulting in a new Forestal. In Covenant's case, the destruction of his mortality freed his spirit to support the Arch of Time (the fact that he retains some form of sentient identity is demonstrated by his ability to speak to Linden during her translation back to her "real" life). In both cases, huge powers were required to cause transformation instead of literal death. ...

(11/21/2004)

Certainly, in the Second Chronicles, Covenant's death left him free to transform into something more significant, which was necessary. Perhaps such freedom was also required for Linden and Jeremiah.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra, saying that one aspect of the story doesn't seem very different to me in degree is not "denying the significance or even the existence of major differences".

Whoa, I missed this. I had no idea you were arguing about a difference in degree in one aspect of the story, when you spent so much time and effort outlining how so many points were "exactly similar" ... an effort you began with this statement:

Did you dislike White Gold Weilder, which ended in an exactly similar way?

If I've misunderstood your usage of "exactly" here, and missed your argument by degree, perhaps I can be somewhat forgiven the oversight by recognizing your own role in creating this false impression. Regardless of our miscommunication, the point remains that you have resisted the idea that readers have a legitimate gripe about "reader/author contract" on the basis that Donaldson has given us a similar product. Any effort to point out differences has led to an exhaustive effort by you to frame them as similar. So if the author has license forego certain requirements (such as returning to the real world) merely on the basis of not liking to write the same story over and over, then it's also true that we have license not to like the changes, or to feel somehow cheated if books in the same series violate expectations that were explicitly set-up by the series itself, or by comments on the series by the author. Arguing that it's "exactly similar" and therefore our reasons must be otherwise doesn't acknowledge our license in this regard.

That's unfair, and a sleight - please stop painting me as someone who doesn't tolerate different opinions.

I'm in no way painting you as someone who doesn't tolerate different opinions. I've dealt only with your comments--a product of my genuine confusion between the disparity between a couple of your points--and not your personality. An example of that would be here:

Can you possibly spot the prejudice in statements like this? If you're so adamant it is that bad, that it must be bad, how will you ever learn to see what is good? Certainly you won't be convinced by me. You've not only decided you don't like it, but that you aren't even open to the notion of liking it. I think you're cheating yourself if you do that.

Joques was a good sport about it, considering you accusing him of prejudice, inability to see "what is good," unwillingness to be convinced, and not being open to the notion of liking it. You've even analyzed him as cheating himself. That is the only example of painting someone "who doesn't tolerate different opinions," I've noted lately. A sleight, indeed.

[wayfriend]

Regardless of our miscommunication, the point remains that you have resisted the idea that readers have a legitimate gripe about "reader/author contract" on the basis that Donaldson has given us a similar product.

I have done nothing but try to help people find more enjoyment in the story. You're putting quite a different spin on that by calling it "resisting legitimate gripes". I feel no need to "resist" legitimate gripes. I would, however, like to ameliorate them if I am able.

[Zarathustra]

Well, then just some friendly advice: criticizing a poster's character (or reading comprehension, as you've done in the other recent thread) because he expresses a negative opinion about a book does in no way ameliorate his feelings about the book, and likely only transfers those negative feelings to the person who is preaching to him about his character. But like I said, Joques was a good sport about it. It's just irritating and--for me--creating an unfriendly environment where people can't feel free to express themselves without being told they are prejudiced, closed-minded, haven't thought enough about the books, etc. It's no one's responsibility to ameliorate another person's feelings. No one is trying to make you not like it, so why take it upon yourself to change their minds?

[Dondarion]

I enjoyed TLD very much.  I treasured every page.  I never actually thought anyone would return to the "real world", that much had been clearly understood for quite some time throughout the Last Chronicles, and it would have taken great authorial license to invent something out of thin air in order to make that happen.  TLD was a great culmination, a conjoining of all the characters' various paths and purposes to bring about an epic achievement of bravery and shared sacrifice, and it was all necessary to happen the way in which it did.  Each was "all in" and willingly reliant upon each other to overcome their own inner despair, and to some extent accept it as something human.

Despair is dangerous, we must never let it overtake us.  But its there, lurking under the surface.  Can we contain it?  To do so we must rely on each other to bring about the good in ways we can't necessarily foresee.  But we strive anyway because the good for its own sake is of great value.  We strive with our dark sides, and the striving is what allows us to learn.  It gives us appreciation and perspective, and trust.  And that relieves us from despair, even if we don't know how we will be saved. The effort, the striving, are the goods in themselves, and we can live with that.  That's real.

TC and company not returning to the "real world" doesn't bother me at all.  SRD once said somewhere that TC is  like an anti-hero (contra LOTR, for example). His is filled with unbelief, dismisses the Land's reality, and avoids taking responsibility for anything by denying its existence and making deals with himself. He accepts nothing as true except his 'real world' condition.  At the end of his 'hero's' journey, however, he welcomes all that he senses, acknowledges and accepts his leprosy as necessary to discovering who he is and what he is capable of (good and bad), and he even grows to love himself, others, and of course the Land itself.  The Land shaped who he could become, and that person has the kind of qualities that are true and good in any world.  The anti-hero doesn't return to his own world "real world", as does the traditional hero. He stays in the world he founded, the world that gave him such a gift. It is up to us to take what we learned from him back to our own individual 'real worlds' for him and for us.

[ussusimiel]

Good post, Dondarion! Welcome to the Watch! Why don't you take yourself over to the Summonsing, tell us a bit about yourself and get a officialish welcome.

There's been a fair bit of discussion about the lack of a return to the real world at the end of the series, and while I didn't expect it (Thomas, Linden and Jeremiah were dead, after all) I was still a bit disappointed by it. It's like a circle or a cycle wasn't completed. The completion of the allegory with Covenant embodying Foul was satisfying, but I would have liked to have seen how SRD imagined such a person in the 'real' world.

I look forward to meeting you around the Watch.

Be Welcome and True!

u.

[Savor Dam]

Remembering who SRD's influences are (*cough* specifically C.S. Lewis *cough*) that we ended solely in the Land and not at all in the "real world" really is not surprising.

[Dondarion]

Wasnt aware of the CS Lewis influence, but it makes sense. Philosophy is a big part of what motivates SRD, I rhink. I saw this more in the LCs than in the first trilogies, but I may be wrong on that. I certainly read the LCs with more of an appreciation for the human experience, what is truly important, etc. I think SRD mentioned somewhere that he was a more mature writer in LCs compared to his earlier works, and I think it showed in his character's perspectives. I read the first two trilogies nearly 30 years ago now. I literally forgot everything in all that time. Then I saw a TC book on a store shelf in about 2010 or so. I had no idea SRD was even writing the LCs. Anyway, I went back and read the earlier works and then the LCs. It was like being born again (not really). I loved every minute of it. But my point is that I read these books from a much more mature perspective at age 53 than at age 23. I got more out of the LCs because I saw SRD as being a bit more philosophical in this last series, and that's what I tapped into. He made me 'ponder' more than the first books did (not that I didn't do some pondering on my re-reads of the early books), and I guess CS Lewis made me do that too, so it makes sense to me. Thanks.