Kevin's Watch

Damned FINE analogy Gunslinger, there we go!!! That's along the lines of SRD thoughts i believe.Leprosy spreads,the disease spreads the corruption of Law spreads,and the battered and bruised way between the two become stretched and more permeable.There we go!!!! THAT makes sense!!

Wayfriend wrote:I don't believe that the world of Haven's farm is also encompassed by the Arch. If it was, then the breaking of Laws would affect both worlds; has anyone raised the Dead in Covenant's world?

Good point. It is therefore encompassed by it's own arch? (With its own laws etc.)

--A

Wayfriend wrote:

Malik23 wrote:There is zero evidence that Foul has any effect on Covenant's world besides a metaphorical effect.

Malik, you can certainly argue that each of those phenomena, taken by itself, has a rational explanation that doesn't involve Lord Foul.

However, if you put them all together, the mass of circumstance works against your theory. The actions of the cult members, Joan's insanity, the images in the fire - the weather for crise sakes! - it's just too unbelievable that they are unrelated.

We also have the characters words on the matter. Why should we disbelieve them, other than claiming a right to disbelieve anything that they say (and what's the point of a story if you do that?)

Does not the author address this in the GI? His answer, was, I believe, that Foul's reaching into the world of Haven Farm could not be proven or disproven. If your outside looking in, it can be rationalized away, as you have done. If your inside, then of course you see Foul affecting the Haven Farm World. It's the same contradition as the Land being real or not real.

You're right; in the GI he does say that it can't be proven or disproven. My posts on this subject aren't intended to imply that I've come down on one side or the other.

I was just commenting on this GI answer in the GI thead, one you quoted too. He says:

SRD wrote:I disagree emphatically with your central assertion (that the "reality" of the Land has been absolutely confirmed). When I said that "unreality/reality" is no longer relevant, I was speaking of the themes of the story: in crude terms, after the first trilogy Covenant and Linden don't *care* whether the Land is real or not. But I insist that I'm still playing by the same rules which govern the first trilogy. I believe that there is nothing in Covenant's/Linden's "real" world which unequivocally confirms the Land's independent existence (I mean independent of their perception of it). Sure, there are a number of people in the "real" world (in both "The Second Chronicles" and "The Last Chronicles") who behave pretty strangely. And sure, no one in Linden's "reality" knows how Joan keeps getting out of her restraints. But "the Land and Lord Foul are 'real'" is not the only *possible* explanation for those things. Meanwhile, what happens to Covenant and Linden in the Land never has any material, physical effect on their subsequent "real" lives--a detail which implies the "unreality" of their experiences in the Land.

Of course, I'm well aware that the sheer tangible specificity of what happens to Covenant and Linden in the Land positively begs for the reader's "belief"--or, to be more accurate, the reader's "suspension of disbelief". But that suspension of disbelief is essential to the experience of reading *any* fiction, not just sf/f, and certainly not just "The Chronicles".

We could probably discuss specific details (e.g. how did Linden end up with Covenant's ring?) for hours. But *I'm* confident that I haven't violated any of the rules on which the first trilogy is predicated.

So since it can't be proven one way or another, he must want us to interpret this on a higher level than any reductionist view, not any interpretation that reduces the Land to mere hallucination. And neither can a dualistic interpretation be intended--one in which both worlds were equally real--because that's the same thing as the Land being proven.

The only positive, affirmative statements SRD has ever made on their respective ontological status is to say that "in some sense" the Land is more real than TC's world (in fact, a Platonic sense), and that both worlds are merely works of fiction. These claims are, respectively, the symbolic truth and the literal truth.

So in what sense is a fictional world more real than another fictional world? I think the key lies in his statement:

"suspension of disbelief is essential to the experience of reading *any* fiction, not just sf/f, and certainly not just "The Chronicles".

He's making a connection between the internal "rules that govern" his Chronicles and the higher-order external process we undergo as our consciousness moves from our own world into this fictional, fantasy world. He's equating the two levels, symbolic and literal; suggesting that they require similar ontological attitudes in order to navigate the transition between them. SRD has also said in the GI that he modeled the Creator after himself as a writer, acknowledging that they both have similar roles.

Given this intentional blurring of the lines not only between Covenant's world and the Land, but also between our world and this work of fiction, I believe he wants us to understand the Land as a metaphorical myth world consisting of universal truths. The Land IS real to TC, just as this book is real to us, though neither the contents of the Land nor the contents of this book are literally real. To say that the Land is literally real--even to the characters themselves--is the same mistake we make when we ask questions about the Creator, questions that forget this is a work of fiction. And yet when we read it, SRD wants us to "forget" that it's fiction, to suspend our disbelief. Which is all that TC does himself.

There, you were dead on until that last sentence, TC would not have taken the title Un-believer. He didn't suspend his unbelief,TC only made deals with his *fantasy* rather than suspending his disbelief. Not until WGW did he finally come to grips with the whole thing............

spacemonkey wrote:There, you were dead on until that last sentence, TC would not have taken the title Un-believer. He didn't suspend his unbelief,TC only made deals with his *fantasy* rather than suspending his disbelief. Not until WGW did he finally come to grips with the whole thing............

Hmm. . . interesting. What are the implications of making a deal with something you think is unreal? What do you mean by, "come to grips with the whole thing"? Do you mean he finally suspends his disbelief?

He certainly doesn't suspend it during (at least) the first two books. However, his engagement with this "fantasy," or at most the rules of this fantasy, suggests a resolution of his unbelief in PTP.

I like Donaldson's emphasis on suspending disbelief. It is truly a middle-ground, eye-of-the-paradox kind of approach. Not believing, not disbelieving, but merely accepting it as meaningful regardless of its metaphysical status.

Hmm. . . interesting. What are the implications of making a deal with something you think is unreal? What do you mean by, "come to grips with the whole thing"? Do you mean he finally suspends his disbelief?

My understanding was that he agreed (at the end of the first chrons) to the paradox of the land being real/unreal -- he made a deal with himself that ultimately, it didnt matter, and he moved on.

Malik23 wrote:

spacemonkey wrote:There, you were dead on until that last sentence, TC would not have taken the title Un-believer. He didn't suspend his unbelief,TC only made deals with his *fantasy* rather than suspending his disbelief. Not until WGW did he finally come to grips with the whole thing............

Hmm. . . interesting. What are the implications of making a deal with something you think is unreal? What do you mean by, "come to grips with the whole thing"? Do you mean he finally suspends his disbelief?

He certainly doesn't suspend it during (at least) the first two books. However, his engagement with this "fantasy," or at most the rules of this fantasy, suggests a resolution of his unbelief in PTP.

I like Donaldson's emphasis on suspending disbelief. It is truly a middle-ground, eye-of-the-paradox kind of approach. Not believing, not disbelieving, but merely accepting it as meaningful regardless of its metaphysical status.

No, by "coming to grips with the whole thing" I mean that TC finally understands that fantasy or no,his choices has implications that TC cannot understand the final out come to what he does.To elaborate,Mhoram told TC that:"It avails not to avoid his snares" so by understanding that TC knew that in order to fight he had to succumb to his *fantasy* and to make choices that no longer entails *DEALS* with everything around him in order to cope.So, even by "coming to grips" he still did not suspend his Un-belief and he fought the only way he knew how.So, in the process he still did not "give in" TC found a different way to fight and to come to grips with the Wild Magic...........

Not meaning to double post here,BUT, SRD answered this question for me in the GI.That's unbelievable wicked cool of him to take the time to banter with his readers.Some of you guys out there probably already have had questions answered by SRD,Xar comes to mind,but for me, I was shocked. It really made my day,beings the 19th of Sep is my birthday,i consider it an early B-Day present,from my favorite author to boot!!!!

This was posted yesterday. Shawn, can you stand up for us?

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Shawn Rolan: Greetings and salutations, Mr. Donaldson,

My Question is somewhat simple with possibly some strange paradoxaial answers.If the Creator cannot reach throught the Arch Of Time and alter the natural course of events why is it that Lord Foul can reach through the Arch of Time to alter people in the *real* world? Would this not constitute a paradox within itself? If I recall correctly in The Power That Preserves Lord Foul did not have the White Gold,which was supposed to be the paradox within itself.So without the Wild Magic how could Lord Foul accomplish this without breaking the Arch of Time?Lord Foul altered a somewhat large group of people to do his bidding(Kidnapping Joan)and forcing Thomas Covenant to place himself on the sacrificial altar to complete Thomas Covenant's return to the Land, how did Lord Foul accomplish this without breaking the Arch?

• I think we've been over this. First, fantasy is inherently a-rational. It must abide by its own internal logic; but it doesn't have to play by the same rules as our "normal" reality. Second, "The Chronicles" are all about paradox. And third (a point which makes perfect sense to me), the rules for "reaching out" from inside a closed system in order to connect to another closed system are fundamentally and inevitably different than the rules for "reaching into" a closed system from an unlimited, effectively infinite system in order to change the closed system. The two actions cannot be compared to each other. The first ("reaching out") is comparable to my attempt to answer your question. The second ("reaching into") might be comparable to my deciding that in "Fatal Revenant" the story would be more exciting if Revelstone could fly, or if Linden were male, or if Lord Foul were vulnerable to kryptonite. By "reaching out," I may very well affect your thinking, but I can't *impose* anything on you without your underlying consent. (Joan, like the commune she joined, was willing, nay, eager to be manipulated.) By "reaching into" my story in order to alter its internal logic and integrity, I can only destroy it.
  
  (09/12/2006)

I think his analagy is very good, very informative, and, above all, consistent with the way other aspects of the Chronicles (weilding power, for example) are metaphors for writing.

Not meaning to double post here,BUT, SRD answered this question for me in the GI.That's unbelievable wicked cool of him to take the time to banter with his readers.Some of you guys out there probably already have had questions answered by SRD,Xar comes to mind,but for me, I was shocked. It really made my day,beings the 19th of Sep is my birthday,i consider it an early B-Day present,from my favorite author to boot!!!!

Happy birthday next week!! I felt the same, he has answered a few of mine. I have shared a scant few emails with writers I love (Robin Hobb, Ben Bova, David Gerrold) but SRD is awesome in his accesibility, and you know he puts in an hour or two a day just reading and responding to emails. He is awesome. I would love to meet him. Danlo on the site actually lives near him, has met and had dinner with him I think. I am jealous!

spacemonkey wrote:Not meaning to double post here,BUT, SRD answered this question for me in the GI.

Oops. I missed your post, Shawn.

What did you think about his answer, tho?

I usually like SRD's writer analogies. But this one sucks. He "reaches into" his stories every time he picks up the pen. He breaks laws (Death, Life, Time, Identity, etc.) right and left. He finds hindsight ways to rationalize narrative inconsistencies. Hell, the fact that he commits "narrative inconsistencies" shows that he, at least accidentally, violates the internal logic of his story. And we're supposed to believe that the whole thing crumbles with this violation? It's silly.

But that part about Linden being a man . . . that would explain a lot, wouldn't it? [Okay, I'm not even sure what that means.]

Am I the only one who thinks a flying Revelstone would be coool?

I'm not really seeing the problem. Everyone but the Creator are bound by the Arch, and thus can do whatever they want within it. I don't think we're certain as to the rules that govern moving from one world to the other, but doing so does not endanger the Arch (so we assume).

What we do know is it takes a lot of power to move between them. In the first chronicles it took the Staff of Law to summon Covenant (or Antarian's life in one case). The second and third chronicles had Foul himself instigate the go-between.

Perhaps Foul does not possess the power to directly manifest in our world. Or maybe the path is one way. Anyone can go to The Land but no one can exit The Land (unless of course you're a visitor in it in the first place and you have your body at home kind of "rubber band" you back once the summonner has died).

Malik23 wrote:I usually like SRD's writer analogies. But this one sucks. He "reaches into" his stories every time he picks up the pen. He breaks laws (Death, Life, Time, Identity, etc.) right and left.

Let me 'splain.

Donaldson writing the story is like the Creator creating the world.

Then it's done. The world is set in the Arch. The book is published.

Now, the characters in the story are capable of moving and inspiring those who read the book, just as Foul is able to move and inspire those people in Covenant's world.

But just as Donaldson cannot now snatch away everyone's book and change the story, the Creator cannot now reach in and change his creation.

The differences in reality between the world of the Land and the world of the Creator are like the differences in reality between the world of characters in a story and the world of the author who writes about them.

(If you say "So how many pages in a world", you've taken the analogy to far. )

It's interesting that there is a recent topic about what if writing a story creates a real world ....

But writers revise their work, put out second editions, etc., and their first editions don't disappear. Corrections are made between hardcover and softcover editions. Tolkien significantly rewrote the Riddles in the Dark chapter once he realized that LOTR necessitated a slightly different version.

It's just not a good analogy. SRD is still writing books. The Creator is not still creating the Land. Like you said, the Creator created it, and stepped away. Donaldson is still tinkering.

Malik23 wrote:It's just not a good analogy.

Well, gifted author or not, sometimes good analogies just don't come to mind. Regardless of how accurate the analogy is and how far it can be taken, I think it got his point across.

Good posts, everyone.

Hello all! Personally,SRD's explaination sets it all straight as far as i'm concerned.I mean he's the creator of this world,whether his logic doesn't coincide with ours is a moot point.IT"S HIS STORY.Not mine.But, I was really floored when he answered though,SRD's accessability is wonderful.I find it awesome he takes the time to talk to his fans.......On the same note reading the GI SRD explains that the story itself is a paradox.So, Lord Foul reaching thru the arch is a paradox in itself.SRD"S answer was good enough for me,especially so close to my B-Day,it really made my day*grinning,laughing*.

Yeah,I know another double post,geez what's wrong with this guy?
Anyway,I had asked SRD another question before this one.Would you believe the man took the time to E-Mail me back with a reply?SRD is completely cool!He gave me an answer a day after the GI answer,WOWZERS,this has been a really cool pre-B-Day thing.Just thought I'd share that with everybody here!*GRINNING!!*.........