Family

[ussusimiel]

[And I also agree with Donaldson here:

It's part of his profound isolation--an isolation which many people feel even when they're *with* their families and friends, but which always has to be *explained* when it's included in a story.

If a bad relationship with a family member is included in a story, it should be explained in the story. I think many of us here feel that his reaction to his son wasn't explained in the story. By SRD's own words, I think we have a legitimate point.

As I have said, I agree that the treatment of Roger and Covenant's relationship felt tacked on. However, given the story we have, my impulse is to attempt to read it in the light of what is present. I have had this experience when dealing with poetry. Sometimes a certain word or line necessitates that the whole poem be read in a different light.* What this discussion is bringing into focus for me is the utter emptiness of Covenant's life at the very start of the series. It may turn out that nothing I can imagine will explain why Covenant relates to Roger as he does, and I am certain that the attention to the very beginnings of Covenant's story will be a worthwhile exercise in itself.

u.

* In poetry the word or line can usually be easily taken out if it runs counter to the poet's intention, which is not so easily in the case with a novel or series.

[lurch]

...yeaaa..and that ,,that aaahhh..Kastenessen's hand there,,welded on the end of Roger's arm...yea thats the kind of thing that endears a father's love for his son . Sorry,,analogy fails in the literal with Kassy's hand thing there and all. ..please...

[Zarathustra]

..my impulse is to attempt to read it in the light of what is present. ... I am certain that the attention to the very beginnings of Covenant's story will be a worthwhile exercise in itself.

No doubt that is a worthwhile exercise. And so is pinning down exactly why a work of art does or does not work for you. I'm not here just to complain. I'm studying the craft of writing. I'm much, MUCH harder on my own work ... which is probably why I'm still revising the 410,000 word behemoth.

[wayfriend]

I have to agree with you in at least one sense, lurch. The reason Covenant doesn't relate to Roger may not be deeply explored by the narrative, but there are sufficient reasons to just accept it on the face of it. Separation at birth; raised by fanatics; servant of Lord Foul; died at least once; 10,000 years passing; busy with saving the World; memory loss. Not to mention: can't talk to the guy without him trying to kill you. Thus, it looks very "explained" to me. The problem is about whether or not it was sufficient to leave this without a deeper exploration. Or, at least, that's what the problem should be. Donaldson choosing to not include a Thomas/Roger hug moment is not a problem with the story, that's just wishing it was a different story. And "Here's why you're wrong for accepting what the author did" shouldn't even be on the table.

[ussusimiel]

...The reason Covenant doesn't relate to Roger may not be deeply explored by the narrative, but there are sufficient reasons to just accept it on the face of it. Separation at birth; raised by fanatics; servant of Lord Foul; died at least once; 10,000 years passing; busy with saving the World; memory loss. Not to mention: can't talk to the guy without him trying to kill you. Thus, it looks very "explained" to me. The problem is about whether or not it was sufficient to leave this without a deeper exploration.

At one level treating Covenant as a 'normal' character after all he has been through does seem a bit of a stretch. However, once things settle down he seems to act and behave like Thomas Covenant rather than The Timewarden. His response to Joan's death is an example of this, so looking closely at his relationship with Roger in terms of the character we have known is justified, I think.

That Covenant has never spoken to Roger (AFAIK) before the LCs, that he has had little (or no contact) with him since he was a child, that there is no mention of any attempt at making contact etc. means that the evidence we have to go on is scant. It makes almost everything suggested pure speculation, and given SRD's bare-minimum approach, there may be loads left out that would be germane to the discussion.

We spoke at the 'Fest about Covenant's past and it's influence on his character and life. His isolation at the start of the book suggests to me an only child. (Roger is also an only child.) Then you have Joan, who is a breaker of horses. (In a sense you could say she breaks Covenant.) Her maiden name is Macht (the German word for 'make'), she is the 'maker', the creator. Joan Macht Covenant can be read as 'Joan makes Covenant'. Take her away and he is unmade.

There is Mother stuff latent here. Covenant's mother would have been the dominant one in the marital relationship (and the mother-child one.) Covenant's father would have been quiet and subdued. (There is potential here to interpret Joan's relationship with Covenant as one of emasculation, which could lead to interesting ideas about his rediscovered potency when he first appears in the Land.) There may be some implication here that the Mother is the ultimate creator of the child and thus 'owns' the child, leaving the father as some sort of peripheral, accessory figure.

All of these ideas arise from the gaps SRD had left, and they leave us room for speculation and imagination in relation to Covenant's relationship with Roger. They may ultimately show that that relationship can't be explained directly through Covenant's 'normal' character, and they also help us look again at his overall character through attempting to see patterns and structures and their possible roots.

u.

[aliantha]

Covenant has a literal meaning also. Joan Macht Covenant could be translated as Joan made a deal, or a promise. The question is whether we're talking about the promise (marriage vow) she made with Thomas Covenant, or the deal she later made with Lord Foul. Maybe it's both.

[Vraith]

Then you have Joan, who is a breaker of horses. (In a sense you could say she breaks Covenant.)

Her maiden name is Macht (the German word for 'make'), she is the 'maker', the creator.
u.

But isn't it said somewhere that she DOESN't "break" them? That she's more like, in the current meme a "horse whisperer?" [a covenanti whisperer?] And doesn't that have strangely twisted implications for us normal folk? And the tale?

Especially since "macht" doesn't mean "make" quite that way.
A "maker" has different words.
The closest you could come is she made A covenant.
which is much different. [heh..but not without implications...slightly different ones though.]
It's the difference between:
You can make a cake [machen verb can be used..."to do"-like]
And being a baker.

**note...that is from the German I knew---"bar German," drinking and talking and avoiding other G.I.'s. "Promoted" to "pillow German" if you were successful at talking to women.
There might be an old or high or other where it means "maker" as you say.

BUT--if you are correct--isn't the Covenant she "made" named Roger?

[wayfriend]

His response to Joan's death is an example of this, so looking closely at his relationship with Roger in terms of the character we have known is justified, I think.

I certainly agree that understanding Covenant's responses to Joan in the Last Dark are essential to both understanding his character and his arc in the final series. However, I can't equate his relationship to Joan and his relationship to Roger at any level. Joan has two aspects that Roger doesn't have. She was possessed in Foul's game against Covenant, in ways that directly challenged his self worth. And her marriage to Covenant is the foundation of his organic relationship to his ring. So his commitment to her is (was) essential to his identity. His relationship to her is stronger, but even more importantly, it is more essential to the story.

[Zarathustra]

The reason Covenant doesn't relate to Roger may not be deeply explored by the narrative, but there are sufficient reasons to just accept it on the face of it. Separation at birth; raised by fanatics; servant of Lord Foul; died at least once; 10,000 years passing; busy with saving the World; memory loss. Not to mention: can't talk to the guy without him trying to kill you. Thus, it looks very "explained" to me.

I don't think any of us are confused about why Thomas doesn't have a relationship with his son. That's obvious. I think a lot of us are just wondering why Roger was in the story at all, if Donaldson had no interest in exploring their relationship, or in going into the reasons they don't have one, or in using these reasons to affect TC's character arc. Roger didn't affect Thomas' story in the slightest. He seems only to have been added as a reader fake-out for Fatal Revenant. I will say this, however: the first half of Fatal Revenant is my favorite part of the LC. And the chapter where they go back in time--including the intervention by the Theomach--was the one which Donaldson chose to read as a preview (I believe Danlo posted his account years ago). So obviously, SRD thought that portion of the story was cool. He was proud enough of it to read it to others before the book was finished. And many readers thought it was awesome, too. So it's possible that SRD was so enamored with the "cool factor" of this section--and the necessity of Roger to achieve it--that he included Roger for this one effect, without any interest in further development. That's why I keep calling it a gimmick. It's a good gimmick, and with any other author I'd leave it there. But given that this is Donaldson, I just expected more ... not a hug scene (we got that in AATE ... it was aweful), but just more significance for the fact that estranged father and son were in the same tale.

It would be like Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker barely having any interaction in Star Wars, simply because Vader wasn't there in Luke's youth. Think how tragically under-utilized that story line would have been, if it was known that they were father/son, and yet nothing was made of it. You just don't do that in stories. It's inexplicably bad story-telling.

The problem is about whether or not it was sufficient to leave this without a deeper exploration. Or, at least, that's what the problem should be.

I think we're all qualified to speak for ourselves about what we think the problems are with the story, and don't need others to tell us what the problems "should be." No one tells you what you should like.

Donaldson choosing to not include a Thomas/Roger hug moment is not a problem with the story, that's just wishing it was a different story.

It's a problem with the story if people have problems with it.

And what's wrong with wishing for a different story? I realize that this is a comeback that Donaldson uses in the GI, but it's a rebuttal that can be used to dismiss any criticism of any story whatsoever. If you think 50 Shades of Gray is trash, well, you just wanted a different story. If you think Terry Brooks is a hack, well, you just wish all his books were different stories. Blaming the readers for their reactions is a pathetic rebuttal. And it's ad hominem. There's no reason to talk about readers or their wishes at all. It's odd that we have to keep mentioning this over and over.

And "Here's why you're wrong for accepting what the author did" shouldn't even be on the table.

Agreed. That also applies to, "Here's why you're wrong for not accepting what the author did," (e.g. "you're just wishing for a different story"). It shouldn't be on the table. I DO wish for a different story. So what?? I'm not wrong for having different wishes.

[Kaos Arcanna]

Here's a thought that would have made things more interesting to me:

What if Linden had gotten custody of Roger after the death of his father and the insanity of his mother? What if Roger had been essentially given Jerimah's role?

[Vraith]

What if Linden had gotten custody of Roger after the death of his father and the insanity of his mother? What if Roger had been essentially given Jerimah's role?

Hmm...well, I think Linden needed Jerry...so I wouldn't want him gone, even if his role becomes something different.
But there's no reason she couldn't have both.
And she would definitely have good reasons in several ways to care about Roger.
And it would set in place a very interesting dynamic. Cuz Roger and Jerry have connections, built in...they're wounded, and in similar ways by much the same people.
And, my brain just generated a ceasura and leapt forward...could end up with a situation where ROGER is forced to kill Joan...perhaps with Jerry and TC as witness. [It could be an act of mercy, that is part of freeing himself from LF's influence {and perhaps pushes Jerry TO LF, at least for a while} OR it could be an act of rage, fear, desperation that BINDS him to LF...or...well lots of other possibles including, but not only, how TC and Linden react. Cuz they are both more intimately attached to Rog.]

The question is: what realistic situation brings this about? Exactly how does Linden get custody?

[Kaos Arcanna]

What if Linden had gotten custody of Roger after the death of his father and the insanity of his mother? What if Roger had been essentially given Jerimah's role?

Hmm...well, I think Linden needed Jerry...so I wouldn't want him gone, even if his role becomes something different.
But there's no reason she couldn't have both.
And she would definitely have good reasons in several ways to care about Roger.
And it would set in place a very interesting dynamic. Cuz Roger and Jerry have connections, built in...they're wounded, and in similar ways by much the same people.
And, my brain just generated a ceasura and leapt forward...could end up with a situation where ROGER is forced to kill Joan...perhaps with Jerry and TC as witness. [It could be an act of mercy, that is part of freeing himself from LF's influence {and perhaps pushes Jerry TO LF, at least for a while} OR it could be an act of rage, fear, desperation that BINDS him to LF...or...well lots of other possibles including, but not only, how TC and Linden react. Cuz they are both more intimately attached to Rog.]

The question is: what realistic situation brings this about? Exactly how does Linden get custody?

How did Joan wind up in Linden's clinic? Her folks were alive when Covenant died (they called him when she went missing I believe) and they would have had legal custody of both Joan and Roger.

[Vraith]

How did Joan wind up in Linden's clinic? Her folks were alive when Covenant died (they called him when she went missing I believe) and they would have had legal custody of both Joan and Roger.

Not at all the same situation, as far as how the system works.
Linden doesn't have to take any affirmative/personal actions at all for Joan to end up there [except to create a place where people LIKE Joan end up IN care]
It is commonplace for adults like Joan to end up in the closest and/or cheapest [preferably both] facility. IIRC, the place is close, cheap, AND high-quality.

But for Linden to take Roger away from the grandparents...completely different animal. Starting with, as far as anyone knows, Linden has no knowledge or claim or relationship with Roger AT ALL. The barriers are enormous, and in no way could happen for any natural/simple reason.

[ussusimiel]

And what's wrong with wishing for a different story? I realize that this is a comeback that Donaldson uses in the GI, but it's a rebuttal that can be used to dismiss any criticism of any story whatsoever.

There's nothing wrong with wishing for a different story, Z, and, as I see it, the topic of this thread is the importance of family within the story we have been given. One of the premises of the topic is acceptance of the story and Roger's place in it. If some people (including myself) perceive the treatment of Roger's character as indicative of deeper flaws within the story then that, I think, is a different topic. To that end I have started a new thread:

• - Roger - A Symptom of Deep Structural Problems in the LCs?

It's great to see such interest in a topic, and my intent is that, by expanding the discussion into another thread, all views can be accommodated and expressed.

u.

[wayfriend]

That's good. Although I would suggest making use of the "The Entire Chronicles" forum if possible.

-------

But everything that I'm doing is still built on the foundation of Covenant's dilemmas and attitudes: Covenant's mind (his "psychodrama," if you will) provides the basis, the essential presuppositions, for everything that I've constructed since the first chapter of "Lord Foul's Bane." In "The Second Chronicles," I *think* I succeeded at expanding the foundation to include Linden's mind/heart/journey.

(03/17/2006)

We've often pondered how it might possibly be that the Land exists for both Covenant and Linden, and now for Jeremiah as well. How can the Land exist as the psychodramatic crucible of more than one person?

Another way of looking it this is, why doesn't everyone get their own alternate universe founded upon their psyche? Why do they share this one?

If we accept that Covenant's wholeness requires a perfected union with Linden and Jeremiah, then that seems to provide an answer. Linden's mind/heart/journey is essential to Covenant's completion, as his is to hers, as theirs are Jeremiah's. They are together in this Land because only together do they attain completion. Their psychodramas are combined into a stew because they are too interdependent for an isolated form of nirvana. All must attain a state of grace together.

And Family is the means Donaldson uses to achieve this. To steal what I said in another thread: Love provides a natural, organic way for Linden and Covenant and Jeremiah to take from each other, give to each other, and become entwined in each other's struggles.

I like this notion because it satisfies the apparently contradictory requirement that the Chronicles are about Thomas Covenant. Linden and Jeremiah are not diversions from Covenant's arc, they are essential tributary arcs that lead, in the end, to Covenant's final attainments. (That the essentiality is reciprocal doesn't detract from this.)

This notion prompts me to re-examine the narrative. For example, Covenant's resurrection at Linden's hands seems to echo and re-enforce and metaphor the idea that Covenant can't become complete without Linden.