On the subject of Reality

[Zarathustra]

I had a little bit more to say, but I didn't want to lump it into the previous post.


Covenant decides that the question of reality doesn't matter as much as his response to the world. That's more than a mere narrative convenience. In this one move, Donaldson has shifted from one entire branch of philosophy to another: from metaphysics to existentialism. This is a move that spans a couple thousand years, in terms of the history of philosophy in our world. We've gone from Plato/Aristotle to Nietzsche/Sartre in one sentence. That's quite a leap!

In a sense, questioning the reality of something that you *know* is real is a bit silly. And the reason it's silly is an issue of authenticity. Even if my life is a dream, it's all I've got. This is as real as it gets for me. Supposing that it's "only a dream" is another way of saying it doesn't *matter.* But something mattering and something being real are two distinct questions, with overlapping implications. For instance, Nietzsche cautioned against placing one's highest estimation of worth upon imaginary things like Heaven and souls (that's just an example--I'm not here to argue atheism). This is a move that devalues things we *know* are real (like the body and the earth), in favor of things we merely *speculate* are real. This is an example of inauthenticity.

Another, less controversial example would be Cypher, from the Matrix. He betrayed his companions to the Agents because he couldn't bear reality. He wanted the lie. He wanted to be back in the Matrix. He illustrated this desire by talking about the fake "steak" he was eating, and saying that it didn't matter if it were real or a sensation. He summed this up with, "ignorance is bliss." He wanted bliss. Ignorance. And escape from reality. The issue of whether the steak was real or not didn't matter to him--only that it was pleasant. So he was willing to have a pleasing lie rather than the unattractive truth.

That's an issue of authenticity. Covenant realizes that authenticity is more important than metaphysical speculation. It doesn't matter which world you are in, or whether these worlds are real, if you are going to betray yourself and those you love. YOU are the constant between worlds. Even in your dreams, you are still real. Even if the Land is in his head, he must be true to *himself.*

To me, this is a much more important question, because the issue of worth and value isn't entirely coincident with existence and reality. As I said above, we can value things that aren't real. But the flip-side is that we can devalue things that are real. We can become nihilists, for whom nothing matters. We can retreat into logic and see the entire universe as a pointless, meaningless void. We can allow the "death of God" to cause us to think the entire universe no longer has purpose or meaning.

But if we did that, we'd be making the biggest possible mistake we can make. Covenant was dangerously close to that at the beginning of the Chronicles. Despite leads to nihilism very quickly. It blinds you to your own power to create meaning (wild magic). Healthsense--which transforms mere "scenery" into something beyond mere appearance--is the ability to recognize meaning, beauty, worth, value. The object itself doesn't change . . . the perceiver changes. We can still find meaning in a world where every single beautiful thing is slowly dying. Even lepers can find a reason to go on living.

[Zarathustra]

Malik

I think you misunderstood my objection to the 'shared dream' concept. It is not the Dream part, it is the We part.

No, I didn't misunderstand that at all. My entire post was dedicated to the idea that dreams don't have to be personal--they can be universal, and shared. Reality itself can be thought of as an inter-subjective hologram. The We part doesn't threaten that idea at all. As Lurch suggested, perhaps the "real illusion" (how's that for an oxymoron? ) is that we are separate. That's the part that's bothering you: how can two separate people experience the same personal phenomenon? Right? Well, if you take away the assumptions that we're separate or that what we experience is truly personal (rather than "partaking" of the Universal), then it makes perfect sense for Covenant speculate about shared dreams.

I'm not sure if Covenant's viewing of Lord Foul as an expression of his self-despite fits into Plato theory of Ideals. An Ideal is more than an expression of a particular feeling you have. It is extrinsic to you. At best you could say that Covenant's feelings of self-despite are a reflection of the purer independent-unto-himself Lord Foul. Covenant didn't have this view.

Hey, take it up with Donaldson. He's the one who suggested a Platonic interpretation, in the GI. I can dig up the quotes if you want. But you are mistaken about Ideals being an expression of a feeling (if you're talking about Platonic Ideals). Plato was talking about something that can be accessed with reason, not emotion.

Donaldson has expanded his original vision since the 70s. But when he wrote the 1st Chronicles, he described Lord Foul as part of Covenant, externalized. Covenant was confronting his own self-hatred in the form of Lord Foul. Lord Foul was conceived as an archetypal character (hence the very obvious name), not "independent-unto-himself." Again, I can dig up very specific quotes from Donaldson to back this up, if you're interested. If you want to read more of what he thinks about the nature of Epic Fantasy, he has a link to an essay he wrote on the subject on his website. It's a fascinating read! I encourage everyone here to check it out.

[Vraith]

oooohhh...keep this thread going!
For me, in my "I'm just reading" mode, I love these books because of the story, and because SRD writes in a way that makes me care.
In my "I have a post-grad degree in lit/crit" mode, I love these books because archtypes are inseparable from Ideal/metaphysical concerns, and yet SRD (as an author, from G.I. in numerous places) and the being that Covenant has evolved too (including, maybe especially his explanation to Linden of the Land's nature) are "essentially" subjective/constructive. (essences being entirely forbidden in the post-modern world).
The beauty is he uses both...as does the real world, if we just use our WHOLE vision.
We'd still be in the happy cave-man world without precise logical thought.
(not ONLY mathemeticians/scientists...any decent artist can tell you in fine detail exactly what and why they did things as they did...and even when/how/why they made mistakes. {whether they knew what they were doing in advance, or intuitively, or some amalgam, and whether it worked/how it was interpreted is a completely differend kind of discussion})

Life would be meaningless WITH absolutes, not without them.
I mean this literally. If there is even ONE absolute truth, then everything we live/believe truly is utterly meaningless because we have no choice, no free will, no effect, no learning, no POSSIBILITIES, whatever our experiences may tell us. (and I'm making an (to quote deleuze/gauttari) "anexact, yet rigorous" distinction here (that belongs, as does most of this post) in the hypothetical thread that one of you (probably Malik23) suggested earlier)) between truth (a thought/living activity) and fact (in the sense that scientists mean it when they're trying to keep philosophers from interfering)
Back to the point...this matters in this thread because stories don't make any sense to us if they have no internal logic/integrity (though it may take some examination to find the internal sense) and they have no value if there is no connection to our lives outside the story.
What SRD has done, [what most great stories do imho] is to place us in a position where Unity (coherence of the fictional world) is embedded within Duality (Covenants relation with the Land, as an outsider and coincidentally (yea, right..coincidence) how most view the world: true/false, left/right) embedded within Multiplicity (each readers meaning-constructing relationship with the novels...and also how the world really works, or we'd have been trapped, or will be trapped, in tyrrany of one variety or another forever)
Forgive the parantheticals and leaps...it's how I do things when I'm just jamming, no matter how much the System has tried to purge me.
My wife says my train of thought is a pogo stick... boing...boing...boing.
J-------

[shadowbinding shoe]

Malik - I haven't read the section of the GI you're talking about. I'd be glad if you provided a link to it and that article you mentioned.

The Platonic ideals give an interesting view of the Land and its people, though it's got a few problems. How does the vulnerability of the things in the Land to change and destruction fit with Plato's Ideals? Maybe the Land should be taken as an in-between world between the world of pure Ideals and ours. Lord Foul... can there be an Ideal self despite? An ideal negative? That really stretches Plato's theories. But Donaldson is free to take the story where he wishes. It would probably not have been as interesting if he didn't.

Did you read the "Daughter of Regals" collection? Some of the stories there (including the title story) really explore the concept of Plato's Ideals, and they are good stories in any case.

But I don't think Covenant in his dream theories was expressing Platonic ideas. He was dealing with it by saying they're just expressions of his own feelings. He's (Covenant, not Donaldson) a much more contemporary philosopher than you describe.

Good post about existentialism. Is he really nihilistic or just self absorbed / egocentric?

[Zarathustra]

Jeff, excellent post. I'll have to chew on that one for a while. You gave me a lot to think about.


Shadowbinding Shoe, I don't think SRD was saying the Land is literally a place of Platonic Forms. I think he was trying to give an example of how to think about the issue of its reality. You are right that the Land is full of death and dying (though Lord Foul is at least immortal), and this is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Land as Platonic.

You asked for links, but I don't have any handy. I have some quotes I saved in Word files.

. . . the Land clearly exists in a different kind or order of reality than Covenant's "real world". In the Platonic sense, the Land is *more* real than Covenant's "real world."

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.

And remember, I'm dealing with a "reality" which is inextricably bound to the mind(s) of my protagonist(s). According the rules I've created, we simply *can't* have the Land without Covenant/Linden. It really would be cheating if I suddenly announced, "OK, I was just kidding about that whole maybe-it's-not-real, you-are-the-white-gold shtick. Let's pretend it never happened."

Put simply, fantasy is a form of fiction in which the internal crises or conflicts or processes of the characters are dramatized as if they were external individuals or events. Crudely stated, this means that in fantasy the characters meet themselves - or parts of themselves, their own needs/problems/exigencies - as actors on the stage of the story, and so the internal struggle to deal with those needs/problems/exigencies is played out as an external struggle in the action of the story. A somewhat oversimplified way to make the same point is by comparing fantasy to realistic, mainstream fiction. In realistic fiction, the characters are expressions of their world, whereas in fantasy the world is an expressions of the characters. Even if you argue that realistic fiction is about the characters, and that the world they live in is just one tool to express them, it remains true that the details which make up their world come from a recognized body of reality – tables, chairs, jobs, stresses which we all acknowledge as being external and real, forceful on their own terms. In fantasy, however, the ultimate justification for all the external details arises from the characters themselves. The characters confer reality on their surroundings.

This is obviously true in "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant." The villain of the piece, Lord Foul, is a personified evil whose importance hinges explicitly on the fact that he is a part of Thomas Covenant. On some level, Covenant despises himself for his leprosy - so in the fantasy he meets that Despite from the outside; he meets Lord Foul and wrestles with him as an external enemy.

[lurch]

Forgive the parantheticals and leaps...it's how I do things when I'm just jamming, no matter how much the System has tried to purge me.
My wife says my train of thought is a pogo stick... boing...boing...boing.
J-------[/quote]


Hey looky 'dere!,,somebody else uses elipses!! ,,as is said around these parts,," Woot Hooty!"...Nothin wrong with a train of thought going ..boing..boing..boing either. The chug-achug-achug-a- chug train of thought takes so long to get up a head of steam..

[iQuestor]

Malik said:

Shadowbinding Shoe, I don't think SRD was saying the Land is literally a place of Platonic Forms. I think he was trying to give an example of how to think about the issue of its reality. You are right that the Land is full of death and dying (though Lord Foul is at least immortal), and this is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the Land as Platonic.

SRD is merely using the Land as a place where he can unfold the events of his story. The reality of the Land in the first chrons was a red herring; he kept the reader wondering if it was real or not, Just like Covenant did; however in the end, Covenant decided it didn't matter -- it wasnt really important. Just one paradox of many in the story.

I have previously argued that, within the concept of Donaldson's books, the Land is real. However, I have been shown by Wayfriend that the question is moot -- you can use passages from the books to support either position , however there is no concrete statement in the books that settles the dispute. Because as WF pointed out (in so many words) to me, If SRD doesn't settle it in the texts, then it can't be settled.


for me, the Land is real for many reasons; I don't buy the shared dream -- it is beyond my suspension of disbelief. I cant see how Linden and Covenant could share the same dream and experiences, then remember them so vividly in their real life.

A good argument against the Land being real is the fact that the peoples of the Land are human (many of them), or enough like us as to have no difference. Cov and Linden breathe the air, speak the language, and share basic ideals. Either Covenat and Linden are merely avatars and their senses allow them to see familiar things , etc, or its not real -- there is other life out there, but humans speaking our language Of course, these are necessary tools or else SRD couldnt write the books -- we have to be able to relate to the characters, or there wouldnt be a story.

At any rate, the argument over the Land being real is moot, unless the debators agree that the arguments are confined to evidence in the test, rather than Donaldson's intentions of the realness of the Land.

[wayfriend]

Nice to see you again, IQ!

However, I have been shown by Wayfriend that the question is moot --

I did? Well, I hope that was a good thing.

As for the land potentially not being real ... the shared dream idea doesn't really fly, but, as pointed out in another thread, it was never really something TC ever seriously considered, it was just a bone he threw to Linden.

But there are things that do fly. For example, we have to wonder why white gold is powerful, why the Land is the antithesis of leprosy, why Covenant is a central figure in the Land's survival. There are two many ways in which the Land was created that are so specific to Covenant. To me, this keeps the dream possibility entirely valid. (Although maybe "dream" is not the right word anymore, because we're not talking about mundane nightly dreams.)

The villain of the piece, Lord Foul, is a personified evil whose importance hinges explicitly on the fact that he is a part of Thomas Covenant. On some level, Covenant despises himself for his leprosy - so in the fantasy he meets that Despite from the outside; he meets Lord Foul and wrestles with him as an external enemy.

Statements like that really raise an alarm to me. Because they are fraught with disguised ambiguity. There are at least two different extremes that this statement can mean, and a whole expanse of grey area in the middle where it may also fall.

On the one hand, Donaldson may be saying, I have this guy who hates himself, wouldn't it be cool if in the story he met this other guy who was an embodiment of self-hate? Now that would be a cool story.

On the other hand, Donaldson may be saying, I have this guy who hates himself, wouldn't it be cool if in the story his self-hate could pop out of his head and become a real other guy? Now that would be a cool story.

And, it may be something in the middle.

In the first one, Foul is related to Covenant only in a literary sense. Like a foil character is related to the character that they foil. The relationship exists in the construction of the story, but doesn't mean anything inside the story.

Leaving the idea that the Land is real a comepletly viable option.

In the second one, Foul is related to Covenant in a more real sense. The relationship exists inside the story - Covenant and Foul can both contemplate it, explore it. It may even be something that they can explain through some mechanic available in the story.

And, if it is so, makes the idea that the Land is a dream more palpable.

[Zarathustra]

WF, like you suggest, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. And the reason it's confusing is because the figurative/literal divide keeps getting blurred by readers not keeping it straight (hence Donaldson's frustration over Creator questions) and because this story inherently blurs that line in its construction ("real" person entering a "fantasy" world).

I don't think we're ever going to arrive at a point where Covenant says to Foul, "Oh, I get it--you're me! If I would just quit hating myself, the Land would be saved!" We'll probably never get a literal isomorphic mapping of Covenant and Foul within the story itself.

However, Foul does represent Covenant's (and Linden's, and our) potential for despite and despair. While Foul is a personification of that (the figurative level), Covenant really does need to deal with this issue of despite/despair (literal level).

So that makes it sound like I'm siding with the "foil" side of the possibilities you listed. However, it's not that simple. The issue of Foul's reality and his relationship to Covenant are elements of the story itself. If Foul were merely a "foil" for Covenant, where their relationship is merely literary, then Covenant wouldn't have had to come from the real world. He could have (for instance) come from another continent in the Land's world, and we'd still have a story where a guy who hates himself could confront a character who embodies self-hatred. Their relationship would be entirely figurative, without any hint of literal connection being implied.

But that's not the story we're talking about. Donaldson purposely brought Covenant in from the "real" world so that the archetypal nature of Foul would be an issue in the story itself. This blurs the figurative line, by making the potential figurative nature of Foul an issue the main characters wrestle with in the course of the plot. This brings the figurative relationship into the realm of the literal.

We can't brush that aside. It's the central construction of this story. As Donaldson said:

It really would be cheating if I suddenly announced, "OK, I was just kidding about that whole maybe-it's-not-real, you-are-the-white-gold shtick. Let's pretend it never happened."

And:

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).

Looking at the bold part, we cannot say that the issue of the Land's reality has literally been dropped and that it's literallymoot (i.e. siding with the "Land is real" conclusion). As he said himself, he was speaking of the themes of the story--what the characters care about. And as I said in my post above concerning authenticity, the problematic they care about becomes a question of existentialism, not metaphysics (i.e. "how can I live authentically?" rather than "is this world real?"). Their personal focus changes, but their general situation does not.

So, I agree that it's a mistake to say they are literally sharing a dream. As iQuestor said, that's too much to stomach. "Sharing a dream" is itself symbolic language to describe their situation. But it's also a mistake to say the question is moot. That's why I think the truth is in the middle: Foul is a literary device for Covenant to confront his own despite, but the Land is a place where characters confront the archetypal nature of literary devices, such that the characters end up asking exactly the same questions we as readers are asking.

[Zarathustra]

Sorry for the double post. I wanted to add a rather large nugget from the GI where Donaldson explains the genesis of this story. Doubt isn't merely an issue that drives the plot for the 1st Chrons, and then can be tossed away as a mere intellectual exercise in the 2nd. It is central to his conception; and, as Donaldson insists, he's still playing by those same rules.

<sigh> There's a whole long story behind the initial conception of the first "Covenant" trilogy. I'll try to keep it short.

1) Reading LOTR in college inspired in me a desire to write fantasy, if I ever got an idea. Tolkien was generally sneered at by my peers and teachers in college and graduate school. However, I felt sure that they were wrong, although I couldn't at the time explain why. As I said to myself back in those days (1966-1971), LOTR convinced me that "fantasy was fit work for a man to do." Unfortunately, I had no ideas for a fantasy.

2) During xmas vacation in 1970, I had what Patricia A. McKillip has called a "tail of the comet" experience. I remember exactly where I was when it happened, but I won't bore you with the details. Out of (apparently) nowhere, my head was set fire by the notion (the tail of the comet) of a man from the "real world" confronting the archetypal evil of a "fantasy world" and emerging victorious because he knew that the "fantasy world" was not "real." This was terribly exciting to me, it felt like a mind-altering experience--BUT it was completely static. I had no story: no information about the man, no information about the world, no information about the evil. Nothing. It was fiery as all hell, but it simply didn't go anywhere.

3) In the spring of 1972, I attended the college graduation of one of my sisters. As it happened, my parents were in the US, they both attended the graduation as well; and while we were in town, my father, the orthopedic missionary, was asked to speak at the local Presbyterian church. Well, he was no preacher, so whenever he was asked to speak he described some aspect of his work. On this particular occasion, he spoke about his work with lepers. This, of course, was all stuff I'd heard before; but as I half listened on this particular occasion, I suddenly thought: if a man rejects a "fantasy world," he should be someone for whom fantasy is infinitely preferrable to reality. A man with a good life who experiences a horrible fantasy is only too grateful to label it a nightmare: that is mere self-interest. But if a man with a horrible life experiences a wonderful fantasy and *still* rejects it, that is not self-interest: it is a statement of principle; a rigorous and expensive and even self-sacrificing conviction about the nature of both "reality" and "importance"; a--in effect--religious affirmation. And *whose* "real life," I suddenly asked myself, could possibly be worse than a leper's?

Every essential detail about the first "Covenant" trilogy grew from that fortuitous intersection of leprosy and unbelief. NOW I had a story.

(06/08/2004)

[iQuestor]

Malik

truly great clip. I hadn't read that comment by SRD before, truly a gift. Thanks.

[wayfriend]

Yes, Malik, that's a good find! He said something similar at the '04 Elohimfest, but alas that's only provided as video, so it's hard to quote it.

I'll throw in one other thing that's relevant IMHO from an interview.

I have always written about things happening to people who need those things to happen to them specifically, who are not just innocent bystanders. What's the point of telling a story if that story isn't necessary to its characters? [link]

When I apply this statement to the topic at hand, I see this as an argument for the reality of the Land. Or, more specifically, I see it as an argument against the idea that it must be a dream. The coincidence of the Land being the antithesis of leprosy, the coincidence that Lord Foul is self-hate in an externalized form, isn't because Covenant is dreaming up some psychotherapy. It's because the author chose these relationships at the literary level (to continue our usage of that term), and justifies the choice by saying that the story is worth telling only if it's set up that way.

From his responses, it seems like Donaldson is always trying to have things both ways. Covenant's relationship to the Land and Foul is a literary device, AND it's also an element in the story itself, which the characters can touch and act on.

Finally, I'll add something I originally posted in the Covenant is Lord Foul thread in the Runes forum: In the First Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a literary sense. In the Second Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a spiritual sense. In the Final Chronicles, Foul will be Covenant in a real sense.

I see this in story relationship between Covenant and Foul moving, changing from a literary relationship to an in story philosophical relationship and finally to a very real and physical relationship. Which would seem to explain the attention to detail and the maintenance of the paradox that Donaldson appears to be striving for.

If he pulls off what I think I see him trying to pull off, I will be very impressed, and I'd even go so far as to call that a monument in literature.

[rdhopeca]

Finally, I'll add something I originally posted in the Covenant is Lord Foul thread in the Runes forum: In the First Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a literary sense. In the Second Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a spiritual sense. In the Final Chronicles, Foul will be Covenant in a real sense.

So does this mean Foul becomes the TimeWarden? He becomes the Arch Of Time rather than being imprisoned within it?

[wayfriend]

Finally, I'll add something I originally posted in the Covenant is Lord Foul thread in the Runes forum: In the First Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a literary sense. In the Second Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a spiritual sense. In the Final Chronicles, Foul will be Covenant in a real sense.

So does this mean Foul becomes the TimeWarden? He becomes the Arch Of Time rather than being imprisoned within it?

If so, it'd explain "Linden, what have you done?", quite nicely wouldn't it? But, yes, I sort of think that if Covenant and Foul are becoming one, and Covenant and the Arch are becoming one, then Foul and the Arch are becoming one, too. But who could guess where that would lead?

(Forgot to say, that that above is my guess - didn't mean to sound like I had sure knowledge ... a mistake I often make, I tend to presume people assume an "IMHO".)

[Zarathustra]

In the First Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a literary sense. In the Second Chronicles, Foul is the dark side of Covenant in a spiritual sense. In the Final Chronicles, Foul will be Covenant in a real sense.

I see this in story relationship between Covenant and Foul moving, changing from a literary relationship to an in story philosophical relationship and finally to a very real and physical relationship. Which would seem to explain the attention to detail and the maintenance of the paradox that Donaldson appears to be striving for.

That's a very interesting theory. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the TC/Foul relationship is moving along the figurative/literal continuum in the course of the individual Chronicles, swinging from merely figurative to full-blown literal.

If so, does this mean that Donaldson is slowly making explicit a relationship which was always there, or instead that he is changing the relationship?

Doesn't the final position on this continuum invalidate the carefully maintained balance he has struggled to maintain all this time? As you said, he tries to "have it both ways." Wouldn't the final progression mean that SRD is no longer maintaining this balance? Something about that is unsettling to me--like the Creator entering the Land and violating the rules set up from the beginning. Or TC waking up and realizing it was a dream. Or any number of "paradox reduction" scenarios. I don't believe reductionism is what he is trying to achieve here. I think transcendence of the paradox is what he is going for. What that means in terms of the story itself, I haven't a clue.

[wayfriend]

Doesn't the final position on this continuum invalidate the carefully maintained balance he has struggled to maintain all this time?

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps he's just being noncomittal rather than paradoxical.

- - - - - - - -

What about the fact that Covenant's dead?

Doesn't that make a big difference in the dream/reality debate?

If the Land is a dream, it's now Linden's dream. Which maybe explains a lot.

[lurch]

I think transcendence of the paradox is what he is going for. What that means in terms of the story itself, I haven't a clue.[/quote]

Really?...I think the author is dropping clues on us to that end. To transcend a paradox implies a 3rd reality( at least) different than the opposing realities that constitute the paradox.Am I correct? True , the 3rd reality can have components of each or maybe all, but is not conclusive to those components. The ending of the 2nd Chrons is a good example of the TC character rising above the conflicted state of the paradox , encompassing all the components of the paradox, and so, so, much more...So there is precedent. But,,as we have already experienced..the history of the Land is quite different from our understandings of yor. So Linden as the Arch of Time,,or even the Rainbow of Today..seems unlikely from this most creative author. I use the " creative" on purpose. I can see the author's introduction of the most creative " Viles" as necessary means to the transcending of paradox.

I am still flabbergasted by the authors assignment of name to these creatures who sound in colors, create Majestic Castles, etc etc,,as..Viles. As far as names, only known to themselves or itself, there is one that ought to have all sorts of Potent Magic when spoken.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend and Lurch, the antagonistic stance I often take (understatement!) doesn't do justice to the respect and amazement I have for your insight. I can't wait to finish this series with the both of you. This is exactly what I was hoping for when I sought out a Donaldson fan community.

Sorry about the sentimentality. Please continue with the discussion.

[lurch]

Okay..okay..I got it..Linden is clinically dead. her heart has stopped beating but the ambulance is still a few minutes from the hospital.. The medics pull out the stops,, They shoot a huge needle of adreailn into her heart.. They pull out the padddles..CLEAR!! ZAP!! Linden convulses , she coughs and a large bubble of blood red comes out of her mouth..POP!...Linden lives!

Okay maybe not..but the idea that the first thing out of her mouth in " reality" would be a color bubble...just strikes me as .....vile.

[deer of the dawn]

Oh... I am so lost...