Kevin's Watch

Another spoiler

Spoiler

What I get out of the text from amazon uk is that it's Linden that goes back, not TC.

Damn good post, Fist!

Of course, your answers must include counterarguments...

First things first Fist, you are not my seventh grade teacher so don't try to give me homework. Now, on to your questions.

Why are the two ideas I just presented invalid?

You made good points and I don't consider them invalid... I wouldn't want you to get your fealings hurt, In fact I especially like this point.

My answers are certainly not definitive.

How's that for out of context. But seriously I'm sure I'll never convince you to look at it the way I do, this poll was started asking if you think it is plausible, not concrete. Just trying to show everyone how it is plausible. What is it that bothers you so much about Covenant/Berek? Is it cause you didn't think of it first? As far as

what reasons are there to assume your idea over either of them?

I would think that's obvious, It's because I'm right. Just as you think you are. The why would even the earth power know about the whitegold, If Berek was the first of the Old Lords? Does the Earthpower have the ability to see into the future? Maybe I missed that part. As far as one of them speaking to Berek and telling him of the white gold, sure sounds plausible enough. You bring up another point in that tales get told more fictionally as they go along, such as berek calling down the Fire Lions, Who do we know that has already done that and poses the ability and the knowledge to do it again?

Well, the results of the poll so far would suggest that the majority don't think the "Berek=Covenant" scenario is plausible. Unless you wish to discount your own poll.

What is it that bothers you so much about Covenant/Berek? Is it cause you didn't think of it first?

I think that's a petty tone to take with Fist, though I'm sure he can defend himself quite capably. I think it's been made clear, over the many pages of this thread, what it is that bothers the majority about the Covenant=Berek scenario. It is that it's too obvious and easy a resolution. It's also clear that you think SRD could do it in such a way that it would not seem like a cop-out, yes? I think I can understand your stubborness -- after all, I've been a bit bull-headed myself in insisting on the "eternal spring" hypothesis regarding Andelain in the 2nd Chronicles. But it's all in good fun and I make that clear in my posts. No need to be antagonistic or beat us over the head with your arguments.

Nom vs. Vain wrote:First things first Fist

Actually, that's quite a mouthful! Anyway, just to be clear on what's happened here...

MMM thinks Covenant becomes Berek. The point that makes him think this seems to be that, as far as we know, Berek knew about white gold.

I gave several points that make me think Covenant does not become Berek. (I forgot to mention Foul telling Covenant about "Berek Lord-Fatherer whom I hate" without saying he and Covenant were the same person, or even looked alike.) However, at that time, I did not address the point about Berek knowing about white gold, which MMM and you insisted be done.

So I did. And, in a tone that, while not friendly, was certainly less insulting than yours, I insisted that you address my points. Instead, you continue to insult, but now on a personal level.

If you would like to discuss TCTC, I'd be delighted. If, however, you only want to trade insults, I'm sure we have Zeph's email address somewhere.

To continue with TCTC...

Nom vs. Vain wrote:What is it that bothers you so much about Covenant/Berek? Is it cause you didn't think of it first?

No, again, it's that everyone thought of it within the first few chapters of LFB. We've been hit over the head with the idea since Lena showed up. SRD is not normally that transparent.

Also, when he wrote the first trilogy, SRD did not intend a 2nd and Final Chrons. As far as he was concerned, the first was the end. Obviously, he was not thinking that Covenant would go back in time and become Berek. They were separate characters who happened to be missing the same fingers on one hand. My thinking is that, when he was inspired to continue the story, he wouldn't have changed such a big thing.

Nom vs. Vain wrote:The why would even the earth power know about the whitegold, If Berek was the first of the Old Lords? Does the Earthpower have the ability to see into the future? Maybe I missed that part.

The parts you missed were:

1) Mhoram saw into the future. He had a very imperfect understanding of Earthpower, and could not control or refine this ability. But he had the ability.

2) Berek saw into the future. On at least one occasion, we are told, he had a very intimate connection with the Earthpower, and I don't think anyone would argue that he did not have a much better understanding of it than Mhoram had. Should we believe he could not have seen white gold in a vision?

3) The Elohim, who are Earthpower incarnate, saw into the future. They knew the Sun-Sage and ring-wielder were coming. Since they expected S-S and r-w to be one being, their visions were obviously imperfect. Whether more of less perfect than Mhoram's and Berek's, we can't say.

So yes, I'd say the Earthpower does have the ability to see into the future. If Berek didn't see white gold in a vision, the Earthpower could have simply told him about it when it spoke to him.

I personally don't think we will know until SRD let's us in on it. I am sure your denials are just as valid as my assertions, this is just an exercise in theory. All in good fun. However I do not base the theory on just the white gold. There are numerous points that can be made. Foul told Covenant that Berek had stood right where he was in LFB. The second most promenent character in TCTC has only been revealed as ghost. Covenants unbelief in the land is enexorably tied to his denial that he was Berek, and the lands's assertion that he was Berek. Are you all unbelievers??

Through Anile (sp) he told Linden something to the effect of "Look for me. But remember I am DEAD." Who else fills the bill??

Milton

Mr. Milton Milquetoast wrote:Foul told Covenant that Berek had stood right where he was in LFB.

The part that springs to mind when you say this is this, from Invitation to a Betrayal:

"The mighty High Lord Kevin, son of Loric and great-grandson of Berek Lord-Fatherer whom I hate, stood where you now kneel, and he thought to destroy me."

But, of course, Foul's saying Kevin stood in the same spot, so I don't know what part you mean. It's just that, because of the way you worded it, that's what sprang to mind.

Mr. Milton Milquetoast wrote:Covenants unbelief in the land is enexorably tied to his denial that he was Berek, and the lands's assertion that he was Berek. Are you all unbelievers??

Certainly, Covenant was quite opposed to anyone thinking he was Berek, but I think that aspect of it all played a larger role in pissing him off than in causing his unbelief in the Land.

Mr. Milton Milquetoast wrote:Through Anile (sp) he told Linden something to the effect of "Look for me. But remember I am DEAD." Who else fills the bill??

I'm not sure what you mean. I take this as Covenant reminding Linden that he - Covenant - is dead. And, therefore, perhaps, not to be entirely trusted. Foul has been able to use the dead quite nastily at times. Since he and Covenant have, in a way, merged, Foul might have some influence over him. Or maybe he just means Linden can't expect them to just pick up their relationship where they left off. Since he's dead, he may not be able to act/feel (perform?? ) the same as he had in the past.

ahh Fist, my tone? I did not realize that sarcasm did more than make light of the conversation, I do believe that insult is a touch to strong of a word to use... However I do suppose it is the insulted who determines that and not the insulter, so avoid any other hurt feelings I think I'll just rant on like a blathering idiot anyway! Thomas Berek Covenant!!!!!!!!

Ohhh and Mr. Milton Milquetoast, why are you just giving in to this nonsense you know we're right. Defend yourself! Don't give in! Fight the good fight!

Sure, it's plausible. Time travel changes all the rules!

TC cannot be Berek. Here's why: the Berek/TC comparison was already known milennia before caesures ever appeared. Sure, time travel can mess things up. But it can't mess things up before it even exists--in the "original" timeline. I know that sounds naive, but let me explain.

If time travel ever occurs, it first occurs at a single point in time. Obviously. Up until that point, everything that happened was undisturbed by time travel. There must have been one unaltered timeline before caesures appeared in the LC. Now, that original timeline can get altered by time travel, but ONLY from the perspective of those who are alive after time travel first became possible. Once it gets altered, say, by people in the LC time moving backwards to the Old Lords' time, then an altered timeline is "created," replacing the original, and the original is gone forever. [Where does it go? Who knows. Ask the Doc from Back to the Future.]

Thus, there had to have been a "1st Chronicles time" that was unaffected by caesures--a timeline that led up to the first occurance of caesures-- THEN, after caesures became possible, that original "1st Chronicles time" could be altered. But it would then be a different "1st Chronicles" timeline than the original. So far so good.

Now, the "1st Chronicles time" which TC entered would HAVE to be the original one, because from his perspective--a visitor external to the Land--caesures hadn't been "invented" yet. Thus, it was a pure, unaltered timeline. Therefore, the Berek he heard about at that time could not have been himself.

The ONLY way to visit the altered "1st Chrons timeline" would be from the perspective of those living in the LC time to travel backward before the "1st Chrons time," alter history, and then travel forward to that altered time.

I know time travel introduces paradox in which everything seems possible, but look at it from our perspective right now: time travel hasn't been invented yet. Therefore, up to this point, from our perspective, nothing in our past can be the effect of time travel happening in our future (because our future hasn't happened yet). We are living in the "original" timeline. Then, in the future, if time travel gets invented, our present timeline can be altered, but it would no longer be this timeline that we are now experiencing. It would be a different one (because it's been altered). How do we know right now we're not living in the altered timeline? We don't . . .

Crap, I think my logic is crashing down on me . . . no wait! I have it! We don't know if this is the altered timeline because we have no external reference frame to compare this time to our original timeline. The situation is different for SRD's story.

In SRD's story, we do have an external reference frame: TC's world itself. Since there is no timetravel in TC's world, events there are linear. And events that happen between the worlds (like TC going there) would map out an "absolute time" against the fluctuating time of the Land. Thus, we KNOW that TC's first visit to the Land was the original unaltered timeline because from the reference frame of his world, caesures hadn't occured yet. Therefore, he couldn't have possibly encountered people who knew of any past visit of himself to the Land.

Phwew! I scared myself there for a minute. The external reference frame of TC's world--and the interaction between the two--makes possible "absolute" knowledge of Land time that we ourselves can't have in our own world because all we have is our relative universe, and thus can't make any absolute time judgements.

Whoa whoa, wait... (Dorothy-Dorothy-Dorothy-poppies-poppies-poppies) !!

**waits for head to stop spinning**

Okay. You know what? This actually makes sense!

I changed my mind. Covenant isn't Berek. At least, not in the original past, etc., etc.

**wanders off mumbling "hmm" and "ahh"**

okay there is a flaw in the uninterupted time line theory. If time travel is possible there is no such thing as a unaltered time line. Anything goes with it. IF and I say IF TC goes back and becomes Berek then it already happened we just weren't told about it because it hadn't happened to TC yet.

That old paradox If I went back in time and killed my Grandfather long before he met my Grandmother, then how could I have existed to go back in time and kill my Grandfather in the first place?

The answer of course is you can't and he wasn't your Grandfather.

And I'm sure we are going to go around and around about this

Head spinning indeed ... Time travel does exist, it is not something that needs to be invented... we have been traveling forward in time since time was created. I Disagree with your assumption that because time exists naturally in the real world does not mean that the time in the Land is the original copy... Perhaps you confused yourself on this matter. The land exists in its own plain, therefore it is not bound by the rules of our world as can be seen by the law of death being broken. Why then should time follow the same rules? I would re-elvaluate your statement.

People, People, People!!!! This is a FANTASY story. Anything is possible. Your reference that our time is somehow tied to the lands time is incorrect. It is made clear in all the books that this is simply not the case. You are saying that since time travel is not possible it can't be in the story, how absurd!!! ITS A FANTASY. You can't really travel to "THE LAND" It does not exist except in these stories. But even within the story the frame work is there for , and there are numerous hints at , a Covenant/Berek ending. Riddle me this; take your original assessment, but make the time in the land not linear, but circular?????

Creator preserve us.

Milton

Milton, I never said anything like what you're accusing. In fact, I was drawing a distinction between our world and SRD's story. Conclusions about time travel in our world don't apply to SRD's story because we have no external reference frame in our world. But there is an external reference from in SRD's story: Covenant's world. Thus, time judgements we can't make here are possible to make about the Land, from our perspective (or TC's perspective, for that matter). I'm not saying TC's world = our world. In fact, I'm drawing upon that distinction in my argument.

***Edit, addition***

Buckaroma: The idea that there is no "unaltered timeline" has some unwanted consequences. It means that if time travel ever gets invented, then nothing in our past can ever be changed, because everything in our past has already been changed as much as it's ever going to change due to time travel. Basically, that's like saying if time travel is possible, then time travel is impossible.

If there is no "unaltered, original timeline," then any future alteration has already happened. So that's like saying I can't go back and change it again, which is ridiculous.

In order for a change to be done to the past at all, that implies that the past was untouched to begin with. I can't go back and save Lincoln's life at the Ford theater if I've already gone back and saved his life; that would be redundant and pointless. Thus, there must be an "original" timeline in which I didn't save his life for my change to have any meaning at all. There must exist a perspective from which the alterations due to time travel never happened--or haven't happened yet--otherwise the alterations due to time travel would never happen (no need, redundant, etc.).

And if you counter by saying that Lincoln's death was the alteration due to a time travel, then there must have been an original timeline where he didn't die--a timeline known to the time traveler--otherwise he wouldn't have gone back to murder him.

See what I mean? There has to be an original timeline if time travel is to have any meaning.

Your argument for me doesn't go far enough. If time travel is possible then, no matter what you do you will not be able to go back and save the president. All you efforts are for naught because he was murdered at Ford's theater. Everyone knows that and it's a mass perspective of reality. Now I'm not saying you couldn't change the amount of change in his pocket at the time of his death, but he will be shot reguardless.

Just like when Linden goes back for the staff of law, she gets it and makes it disappear from the land for all that time allowing Kevins Dirt to be formed. There was no other answer, she had to go back for it. Otherwise Kevins Dirt would never have come into being.

And I hope you realize that this is a circular argument

While I think it would make a good story if Linden caused Kevin's Dirt like you've mentioned, this idea hasn't been confirmed, has it? It's just your theory, right?

Linden could have easily chosen to not go back after the Staff. She has freewill. To assert otherwise would violate one of SRD's main points of all three Chronicles: the importance of free will and the consequences of one's choices. Events that haven't happened yet cannot impose causation upon present (or past) events. This is the entire danger of breaking the Arch of Time, i.e. that time will become so disrupted that causation and linear sequence of events no longer follow in meaningful order. If Linden's actions have already affected the Land even before she enters the Land, then time is already so messed up that the Arch should be broken. If SRD is going the way you've suggested, then he's made a grave mistake.

Anyway, back to your argument. Are you saying that if time travel gets invented, we couldn't go back and save Lincoln? What would stop us? Why can we alter how much change is in his pocket, but not him getting killed? What difference does human knowledge (lots of people knowing about it) have upon large-scale events in the universe? They don't know he was killed yet. I understand that this would cause a multitude of changes throughout time, altering history in a major way. It would be foolish to do, but not impossible. There would be absolutely nothing stopping us.

Malik, why are you assuming that Linden travelling back in time would make any CHANGES at all.

Maybe there are times when she has to go back because her actions are responsible for the "original" timeline.

Earthpower spoke to Berek and the Firelions wiped out his enemies.
Linden goes back in time and through the Staff speaks to Berek and then she summons the Firelions to wipe out his enemies.

How is history changed or damaged?

I'm not a fan of the "TC is really Berek" idea, but I'm hoping Berek is Roger.
I don't think that TC has even seen Roger since he was a baby.
So TC see's "Berek" he's might see some resemblence but think nothing of it.
If Roger/Berek was aware of the dangers of time travel at the point where he appeared, as a ghost, when TC defeated Foul the first time (and he would at that point probably) there's no reason for him to blurt out "Hey, I'm your son!"


Roger might, in the future books, learn quite a bit about the Arch and White Gold before being deposited into the past.
It would explain his knowledge of it.

I don't know.
But I can't wait to find out!

How about:

Covenant & Linden are the 'King and Queen' of yore, based in Doriendor Corishev.

Jeremiah, cured of his disabilities in the land (except his halfhand) becomes Linden's fiercely loyal champion. Somehow, he becomes known as 'Berek'.

Covenant, because he is merging with Lord Foul, starts behaving badly (the 'shadow across the King's heart', or however the tale was told). Linden and Jeremiah are forced to raise armies to oppose his.

'Berek' - Jeremiah - knows of the white gold because of his association with TC and Linden.

Berek / Jeremiah has already designed Revelstone in lego. He passes the design onto his son Damelon, who suggests it to the Giants.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Malik, why are you assuming that Linden travelling back in time would make any CHANGES at all.

Maybe there are times when she has to go back because her actions are responsible for the "original" timeline.

If something has already happened (because its the "original timeline"), then why would she HAVE to go back and make it happen? It's already happened, so why worry about it? Can she at this point choose not to go back? Let's say she does make that choice. If the original timeline is dependent upon her going back, and she chooses not to go back, then how is the original timeline explained? According to your example, she CAN'T choose to not go back. If the original timeline depends her future choice, then she isn't free to choose otherwise. That violates her freewill.