How does TC rationalize his 'relationship' with (spoiler)

[wayfriend]

Everyone has an "inner despiser". Covenant discovers his when he goes to the Land, and he learns to integrate it rather than deny it. "Every weakness is a strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use."

So you can claim that Covenant is despicable and vile if you want. But he's essentially no different than anyone else, other than that he's had extraordinary opportunities to confront this aspect of himself.

Unlike many, he succeeds in dealing with his inner despiser. This puts him a notch above in my opinion.

[mickywalker]

Covenant is a man, he has been impotent and rejected by society 4 years, he also thinks its a dream. suddenly a 15yr old girl fantasizes about him makes him feel POTENT again, he gets a hard on that e ain't had for years a beautiful seductive dream girl is singing to him with his head in her lap, she has took him to a private place. Don't get me wrong rape is wrong no matter if a virgin or prostitute.but he is playing a dream game , his actions have no consequence, in a way he feel seduced by lena a twisted way wrong,cud any man say he would not be tempted to take her even though it evil and wrong! but she a unreal fantasy he POTENT for the first time in years,

[Rigel]

I will say it again, and I am not making this up. He is an anti-hero.

He is only an anti-hero if you view the Land as real.

Personally, I feel that the Land is not real, and that it IS all a fantasy.

So, from my point of view, Covenant is extremely heroic.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

I don't think TC is an anti-hero in the truest sense of the word...

...a story about a literal anti-hero would be like, say, Alexander, but without glorifying him and showing murder and self-gratification for what it is...

...TC doesn't set out to destroy the Land, which would be the 'anti' of a hero, he's actually more in the middle of the two word/concepts...

...and really, if you think he's that vile, I would guess you haven't honestly assessed your inner Raver lately.

[wayfriend]

I've seen so many definitions of anti-hero. Sometimes, an anti-hero is defined as a protagonist who has negative qualities. Sometimes, as a protagonist who is unlikeable. And sometimes, as a protagonist who lacks heroic qualities.

Which one would we want to argue describes Covenant?

I don't think he fits any of those.

Covenant comes from a world which has no heroes and in which people cannot be heroic; that he is no hero himself is a matter of course. He comes to a Land filled with heroes, and discovers how to be heroic himself. This is a process with a cost; his unheroic behaviors have consequences.

[Earthfriend]

Covenant comes from a world which has no heroes and in which people cannot be heroic; that he is no hero himself is a matter of course.

I must disagree, Wayfriend. When Covenant saves that little girl from a rattler bite at in TPTP, isn't that heroic? Certainly, it is portrayed as such:

"I saw Megan Roman yesterday - your lawyer. She said that the township council has decided not to rezone Haven Farm. The way you saved that little girl - well, some people are just a bit ashamed of themselves. It's hard to take a hero's home away from him."

Certainly, in Covenant's world, there is no epitome of 'evil' such as Foul by which to define 'good', and therefore also define heroism and villainy. But I would argue that such ambiguity makes a heroic act all the more so.

[wayfriend]

Covenant comes from a world which has no heroes and in which people cannot be heroic; that he is no hero himself is a matter of course.

I must disagree, Wayfriend. When Covenant saves that little girl from a rattler bite at in TPTP, isn't that heroic?

It certainly is. But is that the original Covenant, or the Covenant who learned to be heroic from the Land? I think its the latter. That Covenant seemed to be inspired by the Bloodguard at the time certainly points in that direction.

[Earthfriend]

Covenant comes from a world which has no heroes and in which people cannot be heroic; that he is no hero himself is a matter of course.

I must disagree, Wayfriend. When Covenant saves that little girl from a rattler bite at in TPTP, isn't that heroic?

It certainly is. But is that the original Covenant, or the Covenant who learned to be heroic from the Land?

I would argue that they are one in the same. Indeed, when the reader is first introduced to Covenant he is behaving heroically; walking into a town of people who fear and despise him in an effort to reaffirm his own humanity. That scene occurs before Covenant is transported to the Land, and it could be argued that it is the resilience, determination, and I would say heroism he shows there which leads directly to the old beggar choosing him to be the Land's hope.

However, I agree with you, Wayfriend, that Covenant draws inspiration from the people of the Land. Who could not?

[SoulBiter]

I would also argue that Covenant (in the first couple of books) has been impacted not just by his leprocy and loss of wife, child, and friends, but also by his trips to the leprosarium. He saw people there that told him things like... "kill yourself, anything is better than this" and then there was the lady who continued to go back to her life and try to be'normal' and lost one body part after the other and refused to see the 'reality' of her existance... there was nothing left of her when he saw her.

These experiences caused him to shift himself mentally to a state where he had to watch out for anything that might lead him down the same road that the lady did. That was death.. the doctors told him and showed him what happened when you started thinking you could forget your leprocy and just live a 'normal' life. That was when he stabilized as far as his doctors were concerned.

Now he finds himself in the Land.... and he is worried the entire time that he is going mad. That its all escapism and then he starts to rationalize that its all a dream and thus he isnt reponsible for his actions. So when he starts feeling potent again with Lena, that affirms for him that he is in a dream. Its only after it happens and he doesnt wake up back at home that he feels 'regret' and physically sick from his own actions (pukes in the stream).

Through out the book he refused to get involved and become the 'hero' because he thinks to do so will cause him to lose the sence of 'self' that he created so that he could live in the real world. To embrace the land would mean that he indeed had gone mad.

Anti-hero... I dont think so except in the broadest definition. I like to think of him as a man who has been 'broken' to a degree. In many ways not unlike many of us (although maybe not to the extent that he was).

[wayfriend]

I would argue that they are one in the same. Indeed, when the reader is first introduced to Covenant he is behaving heroically; walking into a town of people who fear and despise him in an effort to reaffirm his own humanity. That scene occurs before Covenant is transported to the Land, and it could be argued that it is the resilience, determination, and I would say heroism he shows there which leads directly to the old beggar choosing him to be the Land's hope.

Hmmm... Brave? yes. Heroic?

Well, if you are speaking of heroism meaning simple bravery, I won't disagree.

But I was thinking of "heroic" more in a literary sense. The sense where Covenant's real world is a post-modernist world of cynacism (an ironic age), while the Land is a world of epic struggles (a heroic age). In an ironic mode, a protagonist is weak and/or suffering and/or is persecuted by society. In the heroic mode, a protagonist is of course strong and competent and strives selflessly to save the world.

In this light, Covenant begins as an ironic protagonist, and through a journey of self-discovery, ends as a heroic protagonist.

[deer of the dawn]

I think you are all making TC out to be more than he is. An anti-hero. Deep down he is despicable and vile. If the Land is truely a creation of his own mind, than the inhabatants of said creation would have the same capacity for behavior as he does. Perhaps each individual representing a certain aspect of himself. If so she would only be as crazy as he can be or is. If it is all real his behavior is his own if he chooses to accept it or not. Either way TC is the one with larger psychologial problems.

I hate to be harsh, but to say what you said means that you missed the whole point of the books, and an important point about ourselves-- that to be "vile and despicable" does not disqualify one from heroism... both in the sense that we are redeemable, and in the sense that we are still responsible for our choices (i.e., no copping out allowed on the grounds that I'm vile and despicable anyway).

Yes, TC is an awful jerk, but he is also admirable.

[Earthfriend]

But I was thinking of "heroic" more in a literary sense. The sense where Covenant's real world is a post-modernist world of cynacism (an ironic age), while the Land is a world of epic struggles (a heroic age). In an ironic mode, a protagonist is weak and/or suffering and/or is persecuted by society. In the heroic mode, a protagonist is of course strong and competent and strives selflessly to save the world.

Ahh, now I get you…actually, no, I don’t. Sorry, Wayfriend, but you just lost me (I don’t really know what ‘post-modernist world of cynicism’ means, lol.) I’ve never really tried to deconstruct the Chronicles using literary theory; they’re dense and complicated enough for me as it is without bringing Foucault and his friends into it.

I think you are saying that Covenant is transformed into a ‘hero’ through his translocation to, and interaction with, the Land and it’s peoples. And that acts of ‘heroism’ are impossible in Covenant’s world because of how that world has been constructed, presumably by the author.

If that is an accurate interpretation of what you are saying, (and I am by no means positive that it is), then I must disagree, for the reasons I’ve already stated up-thread. But I also freely admit that we may be arguing semantics here, or I may have completely misinterpreted your points. (Lol, way to cover your posterior there, Earthy. Maybe you should be in politics…)

Covenant comes perilously close to an act of incest. He also displays fatherly love and affection. And to return to DavidDel’s original question, I think he is repulsed by the thought of an intimate relationship with Elena, just as he is physically drawn to her. Covenant is paradox. But as Deer of the Dawn points out, that by no means limits his culpability. Ultimately, he does not have sex with Elena, so I think it is more the relationship with Elena’s mother that he attempts to rationalise.

[wayfriend]

Earthfriend, it's okay if you can't follow what I am saying, as I am not really sure that what I am saying makes sense. I'm not expert in literary deconstruction either.

So I'll mention that most of what I am saying is said by Donaldson in his essay Epic Fantasy in the Modern World.

Miller argued:

• that for the first time in our literature, after World War II, the world that dominated our fiction was sick, hostile, or treacherous, and that the recurring stance of the modern fictional hero reflected some mixture of horror, bewilderment, and sardonic humor - or, to use the popular term, alienation. The common pattern of action which recurred was the pattern of the quest, the quest absurd in a world gone insane or turned opaque and inexplicable, or become meaningless. . . . The nightmare world, alienation and nausea, the quest for identity, and the comic doomsday vision - these are the four elements that characterize recent American fiction.

... For that reason, I chose to focus my epic on one "real" human being, Thomas Covenant, a man who personally exemplifies, as dramatically as possible, "The nightmare world, alienation and nausea, the quest for identity, and the [distinctly un-] comic doomsday vision."

... I took one real, modern human being, Thomas Covenant, and surrounded him with epic characters: the Giants, the Bloodguard, Lord Mhoram, the Ranyhyn, the jheherrin: characters or images which don't in any way pertain to our real experience of life, but which do pertain to the part of us which dreams, the part of us which imagines, the part of us which aspires. And in Covenant's case those characters or images do seduce him - away from cynicism and bitterness and hatred; toward love, friendship, and loyalty, toward the willingness to risk himself for things larger than he is. If it is the responsibility of every human being to create the meaning of his/her life, then it is Covenant's capacity to respond to fantasy which leads him to create a meaning which is redemptive rather than ruinous.

... In "real" terms, of course, the only thing that really happens to Thomas Covenant - at least in the first three books - is that he gets knocked out a few times and wakes up willing to go on living. But for a modern man, a leper, the quintessential exemplar of "The nightmare world, alienation and nausea, the quest for identity, and the [distinctly un-] comic doomsday vision," Covenant's ultimate affirmation of life is not a trivial victory. Despite his own sick, stupid, painful, rejected, alienated existence, he learns to accept his life, affirm his spirit - to acknowledge the value of the things he loves and believes in, the things that seduce him, the epic vision.

Here's what I take away from all that.

Covenant was created to be "unheroic". In the essay, Donaldson would say he lacked "epic vision". He was not just a product of the "modern world", he was an example of it, boiled down to its essence. His existence is sick, stupid, painful, rejected, and alienated; his spirit is withering, his life is not affirming, and he loves and believes in nothing. This is what I meant when I said he is unheroic, and comes from a world which has no capacity for heroism.

It's not that Covenant can't be brave. Far from it: facing leprosy and surviving takes a lot of bravery. (As his story about culture shock demonstrates.) However, his bravery is limited by everything to be confined to personal survival. It can't free him from his sick, stupid, etc. existence, it can only keep him alive within it.

So the Covenant at the start of the Chronicles, confronted with the idea of saving a fantasy world, balks utterly. All he can see is everything that threatens his survival. He cannot raise up his eyes and see the beauty that can be saved if he pays the price. He has no "epic vision"; he loves nothing, believes in nothing - not enough to use his own life to rescue it.

Would that Covenant rescue a little girl from a rattlesnake? If we divorce ourselves of the knowledge of what we ourselves would do, and instead follow where these ideas lead, the answer is no. With his personal survival at stake, with his assurance of his own ineffectualness, with his belief that he is separate from all other people (Outcast unclean!), and with is inability to love nothing outside himself, I don't think he would.

I hope that this makes a tiny bit more sense. If any.

[Earthfriend]

Thank you, Wayfriend, for the link to Donaldson's article. It did help. (At least, I think it helped.)

So if I understand this, your argument is that Covenant cannot be heroic (and therefore also anti-heroic?) until he begins to experience his 'epic vision' in the Land, because he comes from the 'real world', a place where true heroes and heroism does not exist.

Through his adventures in the Land, he learns to find an affirmation againt the 'void', and through that channel, is able to become a hero.

Donaldson seems to support this theory when he says: "And in Covenant's case those characters or images do seduce him - away from cynicism and bitterness and hatred; toward love, friendship, and loyalty, toward the willingness to risk himself for things larger than he is." (My emphasis.)

Though the promise of heroism lies within Covenant, (examplified by walking into town at the start of the Chrons), it is not until he is transported to an 'epic fantasy' setting, where he is motivated by his own internal made external, and personified in the people of the Land, that he is capable of true heroism and true villainy.

I'm not sure whether I entirely agree with that line of resoning or not, but it is certainly interesting. I really should read more of both the gradual and structured interviews.

I hope I haven't hijacked this thread and taken it somewhere uninteresting. My sincere apology if I have.

[wayfriend]

So if I understand this, your argument is that Covenant cannot be heroic (and therefore also anti-heroic?) until he begins to experience his 'epic vision' in the Land, because he comes from the 'real world', a place where true heroes and heroism does not exist.

Yeah, that's my argument.

Except, looking at it the way you say it, maybe I wouldn't say it's impossible for Covenant to be a hero because he is from the "real world". Maybe it's fairer to say the real world makes it darn hard to be. Certainly Covenant needs to go to the Land before he can do so, because he's by design a dramatic example of a man in the modern world. (True heroes from our modern world exist, but they are atypical, and hence don't make a dramatic example.)

Though the promise of heroism lies within Covenant, (examplified by walking into town at the start of the Chrons)

Good point! Certainly Covenant discovers what is within himself. Therefore, it must have been there, in some form, unrecognized, all along. There is his bravery walking into town. There is his compassion when he gives the beggar his ring. There is even his bitterness, which (as Prothall wisely points out) is a sign of concern.

Perhaps the best description of Covenant, as the Chronicles begin, is "latent hero".

I will still nitpick with you on one point. Walking into town to pay his bills is no doubt brave. I don't call it heroic (even in a small way) because he's doing it for himself. A hero, to reuse your words, has a willingness to risk himself for things larger than he is. Or for someone else, such as someone's child.

[Rocksister]

Most of this thread is way over my head; I don't analyze what I read in this manner. So simply put, I see TC as an innocent victim of the circumstances in his life, both here and in the Land. I'd like to think that if faced with the same set if circumstances, I'd have the bravery, willpower, fortitude, stamina, whatever to fight back and refusal to give up as he did. I somehow doubt that I would. I don't know anything about anti-hero or hero either one. I think he was just a dude who got screwed and did the best he could to get through it without killing anyone. His relationship with Elena was weird, that's all I can say about it. I guess if I was the offspring of the Arch of Time, something would be "off" in me, too.

[jonnyredleader]

Covenants relationship with Elena is a physical manifestation of the consequences of his earlier act of potence after being impotent. His first act of passion and violence in the Land, the relationship with Elena doesnt disgust him, on the contrary he is very tempted but it shows he has learnt to control his actions and a further development of his unbelief. Elena is acting very much like Lena and forgiving him and making it easy for him to take advantage but he (initially at least) takes her love and returns it in a fatherly way. Only towards the end does he manipulate and use this love to serve his desire to leave and thus fails again causing Elenas fall.
After this his unbelief and responsibiilty to deal with Foul are resolved.