Kevin's Watch

Murrin, that's a good summary of many points people have made here. My response to them remains the same: there's no evidence in the text that this chain of reasoning is Linden's reasoning. That's not to say that she doesn't think these things. It's just that we never see her do it. That's it. That's my problem. However, it's a big problem. We're talking about the singular goal of book one, and the main character's motivations for seeking this goal. That sort of stuff is vital to story telling. If you're not going to spell it out for the reader, then you must have a reason for doing so . . . such as the desire to leave that motivation hidden and tantilizing, like the teasing hints at Covenant's motivations for the Banefire in WGW. The motivation should at least be an issue. For Linden, it's not. It's just a plot device. Having Covenant tell her to get it is a deus ex machina: "an unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot." (Wikipedia)

Wayfriend wrote: How can she contemplate obtaining the Staff at this point? She doesn't have any clues about how she might go about doing that. So all she has is a desire. She cannot act on it until she knows where it is and how to get there. And that doesn't happen until later.

She has a desire? So you're admitting that she wants to go after it at this point. Great. Now show me where the text says why she has this desire. One little quote. Then I'll be happy and this thread can end.

Wayfriend wrote:Not clear at all. You just pointed out my position: She wants to get it, but doesn't have any idea how, and so (necessarilly) does not do anything about it yet.

No, this is proving my position: she has a desire to get something, even though she has no idea how to get it, or how it will help her. In the 1st and 2nd Chronicles, it was clear why Covenant wanted the staff . . . clear not because we could infer it, but because it was stated in the book: 1) to get back to the real world, 2) to end the Sunbane. The reasoning was clear, too: 1) since the Staff got him there, the Staff could send him back. 2) Sunbane was a warping of Earthpower only possible by the weakening of Law which occurred in the Staff's absence. These two goals are DIRECTLY related to retrieving the Staff. What does Jeremiah have to do with Law? Okay, you guys can come up with reasons, but why does Linden think it's related and necessary?

Wayfriend wrote: That's the second time you've acted like you owned this thread shot down something because you decided it didn't fit the topic. Please stop. Topics expand and wander.

Hey, I'm not telling people to stop saying things. You are. "Shooting down" stuff is just debate. You debate me. I debate you. That's how it works. Topics "expand and wander"? That's just an admission that your comment wasn't relevant to the issue at hand. My point exactly. You're free to say anything you want. I'm free to point out it doesn't solve the problem I raised.

Nerdanel, so we're finally getting close to being on the same page. You admit that Donaldson doesn't show us this motivation, but claim you don't have a problem with that. I agree that we don't need to be told everything, too. But this is the single most important motivation for Book 1, the motivation which gives Book 1 a Quest--nothing at all like eating porrage or putting on a coat. However, Donaldson goes into great detail to show us what she is thinking/feeling for nearly every aspect of her decision making process. Even when her intentions are vague, Donaldson shows her frustration at this vagueness (p177-178 concerning her path through the Land). But not this one.

I agree that she didn't realize it was plausible until the talk with Esmer (though she still wanted to do it). That's really when the Quest began. However, I just got through reading that part. There is no explanation why she thinks the Staff will help her, no evidence that she's thought that point out at all. She thinks out a lot of details (like caesures only running forward, the Ranyhyn's relation to time, white gold's relation to caesures, etc.), but not this one. The most important one. She's going to risk bringing down the Arch and setting Foul free, but she never says why. That's an incredible lapse of storytelling.

I agree that it's fine for fantasy characters to accept messages in a dream. However, Linden came from the "real" world, so I'd expect a little bit of hesitancy. And, as my last post showed, there was a little hesitancy. So at what point--and for what reasons--does she overcome this hesitancy? We're never told. Her desire for the Staff just "jells."

Well, I think SRD gave plenty enough evidence to understand Linden's motivations in Runes. He just doesn't necessarily repeat it, as we already know it.

1. Linden: I would really like to get the Staff, because...
2. Esmer: This is how caesures work...
3. Linden: I now know how to get the Staff...

AND NOT

1. Linden: I would really like to get the Staff, because...
2. Esmer: This is how caesures work...
3. Linden: I now know how to get the Staff...
4. Linden: I would really like to get the Staff, because...

I also like it when books trust their reader enough not to predigest everything. The use of more or less subtle foreshadowing is a fine way to set up the stage so that there will be no dei ex machina while at the same time maintaining the suspense and the unpredictability. You know it's a good book when you can go, "What?!? ... Wow, that makes perfect sense! Why didn't I think of it myself?" Tastes differ, I suppose. I find the former delicious, especially in endings.

I thought it mentioned somewhere how linden was bothered by kevins dirt, which she thought that the staff of law was the answer to? Plus didn't she say that wild magic wasn't suited to her, and that since she made the staff she could use it better than wild magic?

Hehe I stuttered.

I recall this as well. I may have the patients for reading Donaldson, but you guys are writing little novela's here, why not put a thought or argument forward, get a reasponse and then respond in kind? I get tired of reading such long posts, especially when so much gets repeated. Although I'm Guilty of it myself from time to time.

Nerdanel wrote:Well, I think SRD gave plenty enough evidence to understand Linden's motivations in Runes. He just doesn't necessarily repeat it, as we already know it.

I also like it when books trust their reader enough not to predigest everything. The use of more or less subtle foreshadowing is a fine way to set up the stage so that there will be no dei ex machina while at the same time maintaining the suspense and the unpredictability. You know it's a good book when you can go, "What?!? ... Wow, that makes perfect sense! Why didn't I think of it myself?" Tastes differ, I suppose. I find the former delicious, especially in endings.

Again, my issue is NOT whether there are enough clues for US to come up with a reasonable justification for her motivation. My issue is whether Linden knows why she is going after the Staff.

It's not a problem of whether Donaldson trusts his readers to figure something out. It's a problem of storytelling. Not all aspects of storytelling are to inform ignorant or slow readers; much of storytelling is the establishment of the "reality" of your characters. At a bare minimum, authors should show their characters' most fundamental reasons for their actions--not to inform readers who can't figure it out, but to establish their characters' reality and legitimacy. This is how you make them real. A character is more than a source of dialogue. Characters ARE their motivations. Without showing this, you haven't shown your character to the reader. You've just written some action and dialogue.

Why else do you think Donaldson has Linden repeatedly thinking and saying, Lord Foul has my son ? Over and over. Do you think he considers us too slow to grasp this motivation?

This debate could end with one simple quote which shows that Linden knows why she is going after the Staff. No one has provided such a quote. Yet, I can provide you quotes to show that Linden cares more about her son than the fate of the Land. Like this one, p. 85:

"Nevertheless she did not falter. Her fury held. She had lost her son, and would dare any devastation to win him back. In her scales, he outweighed the life of worlds."

This is unambiguous. Linden cares more about her son than the Land. This quote comes immediately after a vision of Linden disturbing the Worm of the World's End, threatening to rouse the destruction of the Earth. Donaldson says,

"In her hands she held more power than she could comprehend or control; and with it she lashed out in a frenzy of desperation, seeking to reclaim her son, and achieving only cataclysm. Unchecked, her needs goaded the Worm to wakefulness. . . .

"No! she cried in protest. No! This was more of Joan's madness; more of Lord Foul's malice. But it was not: it was prophecy. . . If she did not quail and flee, this augury could come to pass. . . Nevertheless she did not falter."

Donaldson is clear: she won't think twice about dooming the Land in order to regain her son. Saving the Land isn't her side-project. She doesn't want the Staff to save the Land or to remove Kevin's Dirt.

Nom vs. Vain is right: I'm repeating myself. I'm not sure why it's necessary for me to do so, but alas, it is. Let's all just agree that I've won this debate until you can provide a quote which illustrates that Linden knows why she is going after the Staff. Fair enough?

Okay, page 121. In the Rubble.
Such evil such as ceasures and Kevins Dirt should not exist in the presence of the Staff of Law.

Linden Knows from her time in The Land that these should not be. The Staff of Law would not permit them.

Once she finds that the Staff is Lost, she knows what she must do, and so do we.

I don't need a quote from her. She cares about the Land. She wants to show the Masters that they are wrong.

Sure she wants her son above all else...I would want my son to, but I would also care about something I helped heal and create.

She has all of her motivation set up in the 2nd cron.

Jerico wrote:Okay, page 121. In the Rubble.
Such evil such as ceasures and Kevins Dirt should not exist in the presence of the Staff of Law.

This quote occurs before she even knows the Staff is lost, so it can't be a statement of her reasons for going after the Staff. Besides, nowhere does she decide that she wants to rid the world of ceasures and Kevins Dirt, so the fact that the Staff will help these issues can't be why she wants the Staff.

Linden Knows from her time in The Land that these should not be. The Staff of Law would not permit them.Once she finds that the Staff is Lost, she knows what she must do, and so do we.

There is no evidence in the text that she knows what she must do (or more importantly: why she must do it)--which is a separate issue from us knowing. How many times do I have to say this?

I don't need a quote from her. She cares about the Land. She wants to show the Masters that they are wrong.

You don't need a quote? That's a new argument! Ignore the problem! We DO need a quote, becuase the problem is precisely: there's no evidence in the text that Linden knows why she needs the Staff! In the absence of a quote, this problem not only still exists, but it is the very problem I'm pointing out.

Sure she wants her son above all else...I would want my son to, but I would also care about something I helped heal and create.

You are not Linden. I'm not arguing about what you would do. In addition, what you would do is not textual evidence of Linden's motivations. Besides, the crucial difference in this book is that she now has something she cares about MORE than the Land, and is willing to risk the Land for that. This is the root cause of the "meta-tension" for this series, that her current goals conflict with--not reinforce--her previous goals. That's the whole reason the Land is in danger: this conflict.

She has all of her motivation set up in the 2nd cron.

Not good enough. I'm asking for the author to SHOW his character in this book, which necessitates showing her motivation for her actions in this book. A simple footnote stating, "see previous books," will not do.

What you want?
So it's all about me

This is all one story no matter what you want or think.

If we know than we have to assume Linden knows.

I think it is the mark of a great writer that SRD does not have to tell us something as simple as Linden cares for the Land.
She proved that last time. She made the Staff. She healed the Land.

Your looking for a quote that would only need to exist if you did not know the backstory.

Why does it need to be put into words? We know!

Linden knows she needs the Staff! Kevins dirt and the Ceasures= the Sunbane...They are both 'Wrong" and this she does say!

And again what you want isn't why SRD writes these books! You saying not good enough is in your opinion.

I don't need a quote on why Linden needs the Staff, or a quote saying why she wants to put an end to what is wrong with the Land.
I know the backstory and I assume you do too?

SRD knows most of his readers well enough to not put something into print and give us the benifit of the doubt to figure it out for ourselves.
Also his editors know his works pretty well to

Jerico wrote:
Your looking for a quote that would only need to exist if you did not know the backstory.

Why does it need to be put into words? We know!

And again what you want isn't why SRD writes these books! You saying not good enough is in your opinion.

I don't need a quote on why Linden needs the Staff, or a quote saying why she wants to put an end to what is wrong with the Land.
I know the backstory and I assume you do too?

SRD knows most of his readers well enough to not put something into print and give us the benifit of the doubt to figure it out for ourselves.
Also his editors know his works pretty well to

Nice fanboy rant.
Don't come to a discussion group and cry "there can be no discussion".

I have to go with Malik on this one.
And SRD has admitted it himself that it's happened before.
He assumed we all knew what the reasons were for something that happened.
Like why Vain had to get struck by the One Tree.
I and many others just thought it was foreshadowing or revealing a clue.
But no, he literally HAD to get struck by the Tree.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

Jerico wrote:
Your looking for a quote that would only need to exist if you did not know the backstory.

Why does it need to be put into words? We know!

And again what you want isn't why SRD writes these books! You saying not good enough is in your opinion.

I don't need a quote on why Linden needs the Staff, or a quote saying why she wants to put an end to what is wrong with the Land.
I know the backstory and I assume you do too?

SRD knows most of his readers well enough to not put something into print and give us the benifit of the doubt to figure it out for ourselves.
Also his editors know his works pretty well to

Nice fanboy rant.
Don't come to a discussion group and cry "there can be no discussion".

I have to go with Malik on this one.
And SRD has admitted it himself that it's happened before.
He assumed we all knew what the reasons were for something that happened.
Like why Vain had to get struck by the One Tree.
I and many others just thought it was foreshadowing or revealing a clue.
But no, he literally HAD to get struck by the Tree.

hmmmm ... since you brought it up ... VAIN's arm turning to WOOD seemed pretty important to me. I interpreted THAT as the real reason they had to search for the Tree. What I didn't realize was the SRD contention in the GI that

Spoiler

Seadreamer's real vision that struck him mute was TC awakening the Worm at the World's End!

But ... I am slightly off topic!

I had a really nice reply nearly finished when I got my computer broke down in a rather serious manner and I had to go buy and install a new power source. I'll try to salvage whatever I can remember...

Malik wrote:Characters ARE their motivations. Without showing this, you haven't shown your character to the reader. You've just written some action and dialogue.

I'm not sure what you're going after. I think you can perfectly well show motivation without showing a character's internal narration. Do you think Lord Foul's personality and motivations are a mystery, or is it sufficient that other people have discussed him? Do you think it's possible to have a movie to be godd without it having voice-overs? People can reveal much with their words and actions. "Show, don't tell."

"Jennifer!" Brad's agonized scream pierced the night. "Jennifer! Hold on!" Brad ran heedlessly up the steep, rocky mountainside, ignoring the burning that threatened to engulf his lungs. The tears that welled in his eyes were lashed away by the biting rain. Up ahead the torn remains of the rope bridge, the only thing momentarily restraining Jennifer's fall to the yawning gorge below, swayed and creaked ominously.

Here I wouldn't call Brad's motivations particularly mysterious. Things become even clearer when you remember that a hundred pages ago Jennifer is referred to as Brad's wife, and since then they've had a couple of scenes in which they behave affectionately towards each other.

In her scales, he outweighed the life of worlds.

In Nerdanel's scales, a kilogram of gold outweighed half a kilogram of gold. That's why even the fact that she only knew that the bigger ingot was hidden somewhere on this continent, probably, did nothing to thwart her purpose. After all the smaller ingot was smaller and even though she had a fairly good idea of its location and figured she could find it in half a day, the smaller ingot remained smaller and therefore of no consequence until the matter of the bigger ingot had been dealt with. It didn't even matter that with the wealth she would gain from the smaller ingot, she would be able to hire several private investigators to help her find the bigger ingot... Wait... Who was she fooling?

People generally aren't all-or-nothing types, especially women, it seems to me.

Linden's list of (highly simplified) end results, from the best to the worst:
1. Jeremiah saved, the Land saved
2. Jeremiah saved, the Land destroyed
3. Jeremiah killed, the Land saved
4. Jeremiah killed, the Land destroyed

So if Linden has to choose between 2 and 3 she'll choose 2, but if she is doing absolutely no progress with saving Jeremiah and is essentially just wandering randomly around hoping for clues, saving the Land on the side is not so bad an idea, as it would raise 2 to 1 and 4 to 3, a consolation prize of sorts.

High Lord Tolkien wrote: Like why Vain had to get struck by the One Tree.
I and many others just thought it was foreshadowing or revealing a clue.
But no, he literally HAD to get struck by the Tree.

I must've missed this one. Why does SRD say he HAD to? Would he not have "inherited the essence" of the One Tree without this happening?

I must have been among the few people who picked up Vain's transformation. When you consider that Vain for a mysterious reason put a heel of the Staff of Law on his ankle and another on his wrist, and then he gets himself partially transformed into wood by the One Tree, the tree from which the Staff of Law had been made... I think the hinting was rather obvious really and later it came clear (not Malik-clear, but Nerdanel-clear, which are two different things altogether) that this all had been part of the plan of the ur-viles.

Relayer wrote:

High Lord Tolkien wrote: Like why Vain had to get struck by the One Tree.
I and many others just thought it was foreshadowing or revealing a clue.
But no, he literally HAD to get struck by the Tree.

I must've missed this one. Why does SRD say he HAD to? Would he not have "inherited the essence" of the One Tree without this happening?

It was somewhere in the Gradual Interview.
(If you don't know what that is please ask, it's awesome!)
SRD says something like he was amazed that so many people missed the importance of Vain being struck by the One Tree.
I THINK he said that it was the whole point of the quest.
He said it was one of those things that was so clear to him that he guesses he didn't explain it well enough.

I knew he was going to be the next Staff by all the hints but I never guessed that he HAD to be struck by the One Tree until I read the GI last year.

Ok... i'm still fairly new, so where do i find all this extra stuff at? I feel like i'm sitting all alone, encased in ignorance...

www.stephenrdonaldson.com
Click "From the author" then "gradual interview."

High Lord Tolkien wrote

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice fanboy rant.
Don't come to a discussion group and cry "there can be no discussion

Fanboy?

What is there to discuss. That is the way SRD writes. If your not a fan why are you here?

I don't want him to change, and I am pretty sure he won't.

I enjoy finding out why? I enjoy SRD as a writter. I enjoy discussion! This thread is asking for something that can't be quoted from the book because it isn't there!!

Asking why it isn't there is like asking why SRD writes the books in the first place?

SRD admitted that he was surprised his fans didn't pick up on the Vain One Tree part? This Fanboy did!

High Lord Tolkien wrote:It was somewhere in the Gradual Interview.
(If you don't know what that is please ask, it's awesome!)
SRD says something like he was amazed that so many people missed the importance of Vain being struck by the One Tree.
I THINK he said that it was the whole point of the quest.
He said it was one of those things that was so clear to him that he guesses he didn't explain it well enough.

I knew he was going to be the next Staff by all the hints but I never guessed that he HAD to be struck by the One Tree until I read the GI last year.

I agree, I knew it too. But there was always the possibility that Vain just brought the Heels along so they'd be available when the new Staff was created from the One Tree. Only when the Quest "failed" did it become clear. I just didn't get that it was so important that he was struck. I've read the whole GI (and it IS fantastic!), I was just hoping someone here could give a quick answer...

It does make sense though. TC goes to Andelain, where he is given two things: Vain, and the location of the One Tree. And Mhoram's message: "the thing you seek is not what it seems."

Nerdanel wrote: I'm not sure what you're going after. I think you can perfectly well show motivation without showing a character's internal narration. Do you think Lord Foul's personality and motivations are a mystery, or is it sufficient that other people have discussed him? Do you think it's possible to have a movie to be godd without it having voice-overs? People can reveal much with their words and actions. "Show, don't tell."

Good point. You can show motivation without showing internal narration. However, showing internal narration is Trademark Donaldson. His POV is extremely close to his protagonists. In fact, I WISH he'd left out the constant, "Lord Foul has my son," trusting his readers to infer it. But that's not his style.

In addition, Donaldson hasn't SHOWN her motivation through actions or dialogue, either. He's simply left it out. This is a completely different situation from Lord Foul. There is no doubt that Lord Foul knows what he wants, and why he wants it. And when the details of his plans are unclear, they are purposely unclear because he can't spell out his plan to his enemies. They are also unclear as a narrative technique: to provide suspense and mystery to the readers as we worry about whether the characters are stumbling into his snares. But at every point along the way, his motivations and plans are an issue, because he basically keeps saying, "You're going to fulfill my plan even when you think you're not." It's clear that he's thinking deeply about it, even when we're not shown that thought process. This is not clear with Linden. She's acting on inarticulated instinct.

Nerdanel wrote: In Nerdanel's scales, a kilogram of gold outweighed half a kilogram of gold.
People generally aren't all-or-nothing types, especially women, it seems to me.

Good point. Outweighing doesn't necessarily mean mutuallly exclusive (though in this case, I think the mutual exclusivity will become important--see below).

Nerdanel wrote: . . .if she is doing absolutely no progress with saving Jeremiah and is essentially just wandering randomly around hoping for clues, saving the Land on the side is not so bad an idea, as it would raise 2 to 1 and 4 to 3, a consolation prize of sorts.

"Consolation prize?" It would really be sad if saving the Land were reduced to this. Saving the Land shouldn't be a side-project, a consolation prize, or something you do to pass the time while waiting for your REAL goal. I'm not sure how your conclusions make the story better--or indeed, worth reading at all. I'd rather believe that Donaldson just forgot to include her motivation than to accept this. (And maybe that's a huge source of the disappoint people have with Runes. On some level, they recognize that saving the Land is a "consolation prize" this time out.)

However, I'm holding out for something else, something I haven't mentioned so far. (Yes, like Lord Foul, I've been maliciously withholding my intentions! )

I think that Donaldson is no fool; he didn't accidentally leave out the most important motivation for Book 1's Quest. He did it on purpose. But not because he trusted us to see the obvious, but so that we would be tricked into complacency by the "obvious," i.e. by what we're taking for granted. He left a big gaping hole right under our noses (and readers' expectations run so deep that they will argue endlessly that this hole doesn't exist!) for reasons that will be clear as the Last Chronicles play out. He's using our expectations and the conditioning from previous books against us--just as he's doing with Linden.

I believe he left it out because her poorly thought-out reasons for going after the Staff are precisely what makes the destruction of the Land possible. Her two desires are in conflict; her desire to save her son will undermine her natural tendency to want to save the Land. Her actions are putting the Land in jeopardy. It is precisely because she's not thinking her reasons through that makes this situation possible. She's falling into old habits--going after the Staff--even when it's not clear this will help her save her son. And because she does not have the safety of the Land as her first concern, she doesn't see the danger this presents for the Land. (There is speculation that her going after the Staff is what caused its absence in the first place--making Kevin's Dirt possible. Maybe that's true.)

If Donaldson had her just slow down a minute and think all this through, maybe she would realize her mistakes. So in the end, I think her motivation is an issue--or rather, I think her lack of an explicit, well-thought motiavtion is an issue. But it's not witheld to increase the mystery, as SRD does with LF's machinations. This time the misdirection is much more subtle.

There, I'm done. Sorry for all the misdirection.

Relayer wrote: I agree, I knew it too. But there was always the possibility that Vain just brought the Heels along so they'd be available when the new Staff was created from the One Tree. Only when the Quest "failed" did it become clear. I just didn't get that it was so important that he was struck. I've read the whole GI (and it IS fantastic!), I was just hoping someone here could give a quick answer...

Sorry, I'm an infrequent browser of the GI.
I have no idea where it is.

That's something I never thought of before that he was just a carrier of the Heels.
But to be honest I was never 100% clear on what was going to happen until Vain spoke.
I knew they were going to restore Earthpower but I wasn't thinking "new staff".

Relayer wrote:It does make sense though. TC goes to Andelain, where he is given two things: Vain, and the location of the One Tree. And Mhoram's message: "the thing you seek is not what it seems."

Well that's was so revealing about the GI.
I always thought that the "thing" was Findail.
But I think SRD says it was really Vain getting whacked by the Tree.