Kevin's Watch

Yes, you are right, that was me.

Vader wrote:You don't need a heart for despair - only glands, hormones and a brain.

Maybe he has a girlfriend in another world and needs to bring down the Arch of Time to get to her. (j/k kinda)
So, maybe he does have a heart and is just desperate.

BillA

Bill Assumpcao wrote:

Vader wrote:You don't need a heart for despair - only glands, hormones and a brain.

Maybe he has a girlfriend in another world and needs to bring down the Arch of Time to get to her. (j/k kinda)
So, maybe he does have a heart and is just desperate.

BillA

Supernatural entities have hearts, brains and glands? Do tell.

Hell No Foul doesn't have a heart. The Wizard of Oz was charging way too much, so The Despiser told him to "Fuck off...I don't need it anyway!"

After which Foul sent a small army of ur-viles to the Land of Oz, and they killed everybody and evrything...starting with the Munchkins, burning down all the forests, enslaving the Wizard himself, and all the while, the Wicked Witch is cackling with glee , fondeling her crozier-disguised-as-a-broom...

...and don't even ask what Foul did to those flying monkeys *shudders*......"You'll despair, my pretty...AND your little dog too!"

Said it before,

Lord Foul is Darth Vader on crack...
and is suffering from PMS.

In one of the creation stories the Creator and the Despiser were one and then separated and the Despiser cast down into the world. Is this SRD personalising and taking revenge on writer's block, excessive self criticism and fear of failure?
Despite, despising, is the opposite of creation and the essence of LF's character. He Despises creation while being stuck within it. He despairs because the world is a hell for him and he cannot escape it. Imagine the worst book you ever read, and then that you were the one who had written it, and then that you suddenly found yourself a character in it!
LF doesn't have a heart in the sense that a being that is part of creation has it. Things of the heart for people in the Land are to do with sharing joy in creation and the created world itself, as for LF he maybe gets relief from his discomfort when they come to share his view of the world and how it operates. His "heart" is alien, and his redemption, if he gets it, is also likely to be according to his nature rather than our ideas of what redemption normally is.

Since you're defining 'heart' as an 'emotional center', then I would say definitely yes, he has that. We've seen him display a range of emotions on various occasions. He has been angry, scared, desperate, gloating, amused and so on.

Now, can we relate to his emotional center? I think that's a different question. Surely we're not as sadistic as he is portrayed, but maybe some people are (in our reality, sadists are made through experiences, so maybe he was too). I think where he truly deviates from us is that he appears to be eternal and seems to both be stuck in but also transcend time (he knows future events to an extent, etc.). So, in this, maybe his heart is unfathomable to us, though he certainly has one. Or, maybe he's a victim in his own way too and we will eventually feel for him.

That said, I have a feeling that we will learn more about his relationship with SheWho. I don't think the whole story has been relayed accurately yet. So far, we have him as a gloating betrayer, but, for no reason, I think there was more to it than that. I think he loved her.

The eternal being now known as SWMNBN was Love, embodied...or more precisely Love, manifested.

Of course, the eternal being we know as Foul loved her...what's not to love?

The real story (ahem) is how Foul's relationship with her (both the bond they formed and the betrayal thereof) resulted in her becoming a bane and a force so different from her immanent nature. This was not some lesser being Foul warped...she was a peer, a quasi-deity of the same order as the Creator and Foul...possibly a consort of each at different points of timelessness.

Ponder that a while! SRD has a very deep game going on...

I missed where she was IDed as being Love. Where was it in the story? I'd like to read that bit again as I thought she was still a jumble of stories being considered.

I definitely agree that the origins stuff is the heart of the matter. I think LF will become a more sympathetic character through it. Twisted, yes, but someone we can feel for.

And just a wild shot in the dark before I go make breakfast, but there was a rape and subsequent corruption of a life that can't be dismissed that occurred when TC entered the Land. If LF is his through a glass darkly, then ...

Ananda wrote:I missed where she was IDed as being Love. Where was it in the story?

There are various places late in part 1 of AATE that point the way to the conclusion that SWMNBN is Love .

At this point, I am compelled to bring in the following quote:

The Moody Blues wrote:And to those who lack the courage
And say it's dangerous to try
Well they just don't know
That love eternal will not be denied.

For more on the topic of who/what SHE is, see the "Who does SHMNBM represent or reflect?" thread in this forum.

Savor Dam wrote:

Ananda wrote:I missed where she was IDed as being Love. Where was it in the story?

There are various places late in part 1 of AATE that point the way to the conclusion that SWMNBN is Love .

to me, this is pretty conclusive

page 228 wrote: She was the reason that men and women had discovered love; the cause of every whole and holy desire.

You know, very early on, when Donaldson announced he would write the Final Chronicles and was interviewing about that, he seemed to indicate that we would learn more about what makes the ole Despiser tick. At least, a lot of us took it that way.

In Locus Online, Stephen R Donaldson wrote:When I wrote Lord Foul's Bane, Lord Foul the Despiser was explicitly archetypal, a sort of undying and unmotivated force for darkness. But now I believe that he too has reasons for what he does, and, more than ever before, I care about what those reasons might be. For example, I’m aware now, as I was not 20 years ago, that what this being feels is despair. He wants to hurt so many other people because he needs an outlet for his pain. He has a story, and he deserves dignity. [link]

Later on, in the GI, he seemed to pull back from any intent to explore Foul's character, for complex reasons.

In the Gradual Interview, Stephen R Donaldson wrote:Well, of course Lord Foul is "just a device". Archetypal stories are like that: they use devices. (Don't get me started. I'm perfectly capable of arguing that every one of my characters is just a device.) Nevertheless I do aspire to something more.

Where Lord Foul is concerned, however, my aspirations don't involve making him seem "real" in the same sense that, say, Esmer (or even Kasreyn) is "real". I'm trying to do something much more complex: I'm trying to make him seem "real" as a being who transcends ordinary definitions of reality. This, unfortunately, is rather like bringing God Himself on stage and engaging Him in argument. The mere act of doing so is inherently reductive: it makes Him less, well, God-like. (Which at least in part explains my dislike for "Creator" questions.) So how, I keep asking myself, do I make an eternal concept believable "as a character" without simultaneously making him too small to be himself? Ow! Just thinking about it makes my brain hurt.

In any case, the question of Lord Foul's "integrity...as a character" is one that simply doesn't conform to the ordinary requirements of storytelling. <sigh> Maybe when I'm a God-like being myself, I'll be able to explain all this better.

(04/15/2009)

All of which bears on the question, does Lord Foul have a heart?

If you mean, does Lord Foul have compassion, I think the answer is no. He is, in fact, Archetypal Evil, and Donaldson doesn't apply the "normal" rules of character integrity.

But if you mean, does Lord Foul feel, I think the answer is yes. I think that this is the minimum requirement for despair.

However, we may never get to actually know what he feels, and how he feels about feeling it, except insofar as other characters in the story express their own understanding of him - regardless of whether they have any actual facts about it.

wayfriend wrote:You know, very early on, when Donaldson announced he would write the Final Chronicles and was interviewing about that, he seemed to indicate that we would learn more about what makes the ole Despiser tick. At least, a lot of us took it that way.

In Locus Online, Stephen R Donaldson wrote:When I wrote Lord Foul's Bane, Lord Foul the Despiser was explicitly archetypal, a sort of undying and unmotivated force for darkness. But now I believe that he too has reasons for what he does, and, more than ever before, I care about what those reasons might be. For example, I’m aware now, as I was not 20 years ago, that what this being feels is despair. He wants to hurt so many other people because he needs an outlet for his pain. He has a story, and he deserves dignity. [link]

Later on, in the GI, he seemed to pull back from any intent to explore Foul's character, for complex reasons.

In the Gradual Interview, Stephen R Donaldson wrote:Well, of course Lord Foul is "just a device". Archetypal stories are like that: they use devices. (Don't get me started. I'm perfectly capable of arguing that every one of my characters is just a device.) Nevertheless I do aspire to something more.

Where Lord Foul is concerned, however, my aspirations don't involve making him seem "real" in the same sense that, say, Esmer (or even Kasreyn) is "real". I'm trying to do something much more complex: I'm trying to make him seem "real" as a being who transcends ordinary definitions of reality. This, unfortunately, is rather like bringing God Himself on stage and engaging Him in argument. The mere act of doing so is inherently reductive: it makes Him less, well, God-like. (Which at least in part explains my dislike for "Creator" questions.) So how, I keep asking myself, do I make an eternal concept believable "as a character" without simultaneously making him too small to be himself? Ow! Just thinking about it makes my brain hurt.

In any case, the question of Lord Foul's "integrity...as a character" is one that simply doesn't conform to the ordinary requirements of storytelling. <sigh> Maybe when I'm a God-like being myself, I'll be able to explain all this better.

(04/15/2009)

All of which bears on the question, does Lord Foul have a heart?

If you mean, does Lord Foul have compassion, I think the answer is no. He is, in fact, Archetypal Evil, and Donaldson doesn't apply the "normal" rules of character integrity.

But if you mean, does Lord Foul feel, I think the answer is yes. I think that this is the minimum requirement for despair.

However, we may never get to actually know what he feels, and how he feels about feeling it, except insofar as other characters in the story express their own understanding of him - regardless of whether they have any actual facts about it.

LF feels, but those aren't the type of feelings that come from the heart. When one speaks of the archetypal heart, it is an expression of love-related feelings. LF can't love, LF can't care, LF doesn't have any of that in him because he lacks a heart. He feels anger and contempt, but those aren't heart-related feelings.

Through the Chrons, Donaldson has revealed the archetypal essence of themes that are typically found in fantasy stories. And he has amazingly done so in the context of characters from the "real," non-fantasy world who don't consider themselves archetypes. And he has revealed psychical elements of fantasy authors. Tolkien could write Sauron into a story because he has something of a Sauron within him. And he had something (no doubt a lot more of) a wise Gandalf within him. He also had something of an innocent Hobbit and a heroic human within him. By writing stories, fantasy authors bring forward psychical elements which exist within us all. Characters from the "real" world, such as Troy, Covenant, and Avery, represent the archetypal Everyman or woman.

wayfriend wrote: If you mean, does Lord Foul have compassion, I think the answer is no. He is, in fact, Archetypal Evil, and Donaldson doesn't apply the "normal" rules of character integrity.

But if you mean, does Lord Foul feel, I think the answer is yes. I think that this is the minimum requirement for despair.

However, we may never get to actually know what he feels, and how he feels about feeling it, except insofar as other characters in the story express their own understanding of him - regardless of whether they have any actual facts about it.

I think I basically agree...with the caveat? addendum?...that I think, pure speculation, we'll get, because of SHE, a greater context of LF, Creator, and SHE, even if not definite understanding of their content. More clearly see the "shape" of their realm/existence, even if we remain unsure, have to debate and ponder how it is to be/live in that space.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:LF feels, but those aren't the type of feelings that come from the heart. When one speaks of the archetypal heart, it is an expression of love-related feelings. LF can't love, LF can't care, LF doesn't have any of that in him because he lacks a heart. He feels anger and contempt, but those aren't heart-related feelings.

That's why I am wondering what you mean by "has a heart".

Love-related feelings? What has that to do with feeling despair? Feeling despair was what Covenenant claimed Foul could do. He never claimed anything about love.

I wouldn't ever agree to the notion that despair is a feeling that depends upon a capacity for love. All it depends on is a capacity for caring about one's own self. I will grant Foul that much. But not love.

Notice that we don't get to see Foul's secret despair. We only have Covenant's word for it, and Covenant needed to be the Timewarden to gain this knowledge. Not only is this something that, as not-gods, we could not understand, but it is something that, as a once-god, Covenant has translated from god-terms into human terms. Foul feels something; the best way that we mortals can understand it is to call it "despair".

The mistake would be to think of it in terms of the despair we humans feel.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:LF feels, but those aren't the type of feelings that come from the heart. When one speaks of the archetypal heart, it is an expression of love-related feelings. LF can't love, LF can't care, LF doesn't have any of that in him because he lacks a heart. He feels anger and contempt, but those aren't heart-related feelings.

That's why I am wondering what you mean by "has a heart".

Love-related feelings? What has that to do with feeling despair? Feeling despair was what Covenenant claimed Foul could do. He never claimed anything about love.

I wouldn't ever agree to the notion that despair is a feeling that depends upon a capacity for love. All it depends on is a capacity for caring about one's own self. I will grant Foul that much. But not love.

Notice that we don't get to see Foul's secret despair. We only have Covenant's word for it, and Covenant needed to be the Timewarden to gain this knowledge. Not only is this something that, as not-gods, we could not understand, but it is something that, as a once-god, Covenant has translated from god-terms into human terms. Foul feels something; the best way that we mortals can understand it is to call it "despair".

The mistake would be to think of it in terms of the despair we humans feel.

At the end of WGW, Foul declared that he didn't think much of humanity's idea of love (a "paltry yearning"). But how would he know what love is? For someone who only has darkness where his heart should be, it sounds like he was talking over his head. Foul does know despair, this was more of a narrative point than Covenant's (edit - because of his infinite perspective on history and historical figures); and while it may not be like human despair, it may simply be of a more profound nature, a depth of despair that humans can never feel because they are limited by their mortal natures. So what we experience is "paltry" in comparison to that of an immortal being, and in Foul's case, one who overcompensates for the infinite depth of despair through his immeasurable despite.