Moderator: Seareach
YAY!SRD wrote:Both G. P. Putnams Sons and Orion/Gollancz are putting "Fatal Revenant" on their schedules for October 2007 (the 30th anniversary of the publication of "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever"). They can do this because I've agreed to produce a "finished" third draft by the end of January--which is pretty fast work for me, but I think I can do it.
11/10/06
ALRIGHT!!!!!Furls Fire wrote:In the "News" section...
YAY!SRD wrote:Both G. P. Putnams Sons and Orion/Gollancz are putting "Fatal Revenant" on their schedules for October 2007 (the 30th anniversary of the publication of "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever"). They can do this because I've agreed to produce a "finished" third draft by the end of January--which is pretty fast work for me, but I think I can do it.
11/10/06
Vincent: Why didn't the creator realize that by trapping Foul within the arch of time he was merely exacerbating the problem that Foul's banes would have produced? Was he attempting to protect other future 'projects' from his influence? Or did he believe that by forcing Foul to live amung the 'mortals' he might teach him some measure of compassion for them? What motivates Foul to constantly assail the people of the land? They aren't the cause of his situation and surely his anger would have subsided over time. Did he prompt/goad Kevin into performing the ritual of desecration because he hoped it would bring down the arch, or because he secretly feared that the lords' power would grow to one day rival his own? Now that Covenant is dead, with the law of death being broken, can Foul break the arch, or is he hopelessly trapped because the crux (Covenant) is now nothing more than a tool?
Gee, and I was SO hoping there wouldn't be any more Creator questions.... <rueful smile>
OK (he said, girding up his loins), let's break this down into Creator questions and LF questions.
Creator questions. You could say that the Creator trapped LF within the Arch by accident. (There's some textual justification for this view.) You could say that the Creator was solving his own "problem of how to deal with evil" by putting the bad guy in prison. (I can't think of any textual evidence, but the interpretation itself is probably defensible.) Or you could say that the Creator was taking a more holistic, even Zen approach to the situation: how can a living organism (the creation) grow if it doesn't have something both to strive for and to strive against? This is an extremely risky way of being a Creator: it requires him to give up on the whole notion of "perfection," and to face the very real prospect of complete failure. But it may conceivably be the most *loving* way of being a Creator.
LF questions. Well, of course, misery loves company. In my experience, people who are in intense, chronic pain usually "punish" the people around them; anyone who happens to be within reach, including innocent bystanders. Such individuals ease the sting of their own pain by feeling empowered when they cause pain in others. But LF also has a better reason for being so nasty. He can't break the Arch of Time himself: only power wielded by other people has the potential to free him from his prison. So the ultimate aim of everything he does is to goad other people into extreme--and extremely destructive--acts of power (like the Ritual of Desecration). And, of course, if the people who are being goaded are in intense pain, they are more likely to exert power destructively. Meanwhile LF remains trapped because a) the Law of Time is the most fundamental--therefore the least easily damaged--of the necessary Laws, and b) Covenant's self-sacrifice (voluntarily becoming an inherent participant in the Arch) has made the Law of Time stronger rather than weaker. (To call Covenant "nothing more than a tool" is to disregard the voluntary nature of his sacrifice.)
I hope that's clear.
(11/11/2006)
crystal, Mr D!SRD wrote:I hope that's clear.
(11/11/2006)
Hmmm, that's something to think about.Covenant's self-sacrifice (voluntarily becoming an inherent participant in the Arch) has made the Law of Time stronger rather than weaker.
Heeheehee....and he was AWESOME...I've just finished taping my final Guest Expert appearances on "Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour." If you're interested in such things, I'll be in Episodes 39 and 40. And I also took a turn playing Drool Rockworm in the Fantasy Action Sequence for Episode 36. (Or is it 37? I'm confused on this point.)
11/13/06
That couldn't possibly be any more awesome.Cameraman Jenn wrote:Did y'all see this? Did ya Did ya?
Heeheehee....and he was AWESOME...I've just finished taping my final Guest Expert appearances on "Heatherly and Julie's Fantasy Bedtime Hour." If you're interested in such things, I'll be in Episodes 39 and 40. And I also took a turn playing Drool Rockworm in the Fantasy Action Sequence for Episode 36. (Or is it 37? I'm confused on this point.)
11/13/06
Matrixman wrote:Hmmm, that's something to think about.Covenant's self-sacrifice (voluntarily becoming an inherent participant in the Arch) has made the Law of Time stronger rather than weaker.Spoiler
I assumed the Law of Time had been weakened by events in Runes.
I think that the phrase "inherent participant" was carefully chosen here to guide us about how to think about the relationship between Covanent and the Arch. Covenant is now part of the Arch, but he is not all of the Arch. And, while the Archmay be strengthened, I bet that it opens up some new weaknesses as well (just as creating the Staff did for the Earhpower).Matrixman wrote:So...the "thing" that is the Arch or the Law of Time is conscious or sentient because Covenant is a part of it, just as the new Staff of Law is "alive" because of the Elohim in it - and because it's guided by a sense of Law imparted to it by the Sun-Sage. Correct? So both Covenant and Linden have impressed their DNA on that world...
SRD wrote:Doesn’t the text say somewhere that Covenant doesn’t like being called Tom? (That’s not a detail I can check where I’m sitting at the moment.)
I don't remember this. Anybody?Well, I just searched through the electronic version I have of the first six books and I certainly can't see any reference to that.aliantha wrote:SRD wrote:Doesn’t the text say somewhere that Covenant doesn’t like being called Tom? (That’s not a detail I can check where I’m sitting at the moment.)
LFB right before TC gets the beggers note from the boy wrote:
Roger! Covenant groaned as he neared the door of the phone company's offices. He had never even liked that name.
Wow, someone willing to call their "idol" a jerk! And Donaldson posts it! Something about this exchange warms my heart, both the bravery of calling Mr. D. out on a perceived injustice, and Donaldson's open contrition. (And the fact that he's posting on T-day.)Vincent: It is not that I am taking anything away from the voluntary nature of Covenant's sacrifice when I say that to Foul he is little more than a tool. I say that because of the breaking of the law of death and Foul's mastery of the dead Kevin. If Foul were to have raised Covenant in this manner then he would indeed be nothing but a tool, and that was what the final part of Runes with 'Covenant' riding up to the gates of Revelstone led me to think. I felt the need to defend myself on that point because you dismissed my question as irrelevant. Not only that you mocked my entire question and did it in such a way that I looked like a buffoon for even asking it. Let me tell you the truth about the Creator, both yours and mine: He's bored. He's not good or evil. Those are concepts we ascribe to things because of how they effect our lives personaly. He doesn't care. Foul didn't even exist before he created him, and the only reason the creator does anything at all to help combat him is because he wants his creations to love him. He created Foul to be a villain and dumps misery and suffering upon him in abundance so that he will in turn be the bad guy so the people will then turn to him for help.
Maybe that doesn't have anything to do with your story, and maybe I am just upset because I am depressed, but you could have just ignored my question rather than mocking it. I idolized you. I'm not a stalker or some kind of psycho, I am just a fan, and an aspiring writer. I haven't included my e-mail address and I don't expect a response. I'll read your books because I enjoy them and anything that takes a little time out of the misery I go through on a daily basis is a boon, but personaly I think you are a jerk.
I wish I could remember your original question--or my response to it. And I wish that you had included an e-mail address, so I could send you a personal apology. It is not my intent to mock my readers. But sometimes my sense of humor gets a bit carried away. And sometimes I become impatient or vexed. That's not your fault, of course. But it does happen.
Quite frankly, I use myself as a model for the Land's Creator. Since *I'm* not bored, I assume he isn't either.
Please accept my regrets.
(11/23/2006)
