Regarding Linden's Command

[wayfriend]

I think they were compelled, too.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I think they were compelled, too.

Perhaps you should consider a trope known as Xanatos Roulette.

Basically, an attempt to make a villain seem impressive, stretched to the point where Willing Suspension Of Disbelief is broken. In rare cases, a Xanatos Roulette can be successfully executed, but you really have to establish a character as The Chessmaster for them to be able to pull it off without arousing your audience's skepticism. Genuine precognition also helps.... as it turns out everything up to then (including the supposed successes of the heroes against the old villains) is all part of their scheme. Also often the justification of the Omniscient Morality License; their control over events is supposedly total. Additionally, if a character messes with their own mind, getting their memories back almost inevitably becomes a Xanatos Roulette at some point.

Roger is a minor Chessmaster compared to Foul, but that he is.

[Relayer]

"if you ever think you are winning against a Chess Master, you have already lost. The only way to win against that dude is to stage a Xanatos Roulette so complex that even you yourself won't be sure it'd work. Or to act entirely at random, and hope you get lucky."

As TC said to Linden, "Do something they don't expect."

[Orlion]

Great posts, guys. But now you got me thinking of Warden Dios and Holt now.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"if you ever think you are winning against a Chess Master, you have already lost. The only way to win against that dude is to stage a Xanatos Roulette so complex that even you yourself won't be sure it'd work. Or to act entirely at random, and hope you get lucky."

As TC said to Linden, "Do something they don't expect."

If TC was acting under his own power in that incident, then he was being a Chess Master himself. He's not above that sort of thing, at the end of WGW Covenant cleverly staged and pulled off an almost miraculous Batman Gambit.

[Vraith]

Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Are you saying the author of a story is the Chess Master? One would think so, that's the very nature of the beast!

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Actually, the peeps at that site call Roger the Magnificent Bastard who goes beyond the Chess Master in villainy. "The Magnificent Bastard is what happens when you combine the Chessmaster, the Trickster ["The trickster is often a Master Of Disguise and may have magical or super-powers"], and the Manipulative Bastard..."

[Orlion]

Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

I tend to agree... mainly because there's a lot of television/film analogies being used to describe what's happening in literature. When the two cross over, that's fine... but I think the guy misses the whole point when he reduces the entire Chronicles as a sliding between Idealism and Cynicism. That's because instead of looking at Blake, James, and Faulkner, these people look to Batman, Gargoyles, and Gummy Bears.

Not to say that some good points are made, I just think better points can be made with literary references.

[Relayer]

That's because instead of looking at Blake, James, and Faulkner, these people look to Batman, Gargoyles, and Gummy Bears.

LOL. Those would be the Harrow, ur-viles, and the skest... ?

[Orlion]

That's because instead of looking at Blake, James, and Faulkner, these people look to Batman, Gargoyles, and Gummy Bears.

LOL. Those would be the Harrow, ur-viles, and the skest... ?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

I tend to agree... mainly because there's a lot of television/film analogies being used to describe what's happening in literature. When the two cross over, that's fine... but I think the guy misses the whole point when he reduces the entire Chronicles as a sliding between Idealism and Cynicism. That's because instead of looking at Blake, James, and Faulkner, these people look to Batman, Gargoyles, and Gummy Bears.

Not to say that some good points are made, I just think better points can be made with literary references.

Only if you include L. Frank Baum in the list of literary giants. All Just A Dream.

[Vraith]

Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Actually, the peeps at that site call Roger the Magnificent Bastard who goes beyond the Chess Master in villainy. "The Magnificent Bastard is what happens when you combine the Chessmaster, the Trickster ["The trickster is often a Master Of Disguise and may have magical or super-powers"], and the Manipulative Bastard..."

Don't get me wrong...the stuff there amuses me. But tropes are kinda like beams in a house: you sorta need them so the thing won't fall down, but just cuz you can see them doesn't mean you understand architecture, and all the interesting stuff happens between and inside.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Wow...the peeps at that site have way way way too much time on their hands: not to mention reducing every creative endeavor ever to a "Chessmaster" plot by the author.

Actually, the peeps at that site call Roger the Magnificent Bastard who goes beyond the Chess Master in villainy. "The Magnificent Bastard is what happens when you combine the Chessmaster, the Trickster ["The trickster is often a Master Of Disguise and may have magical or super-powers"], and the Manipulative Bastard..."

Don't get me wrong...the stuff there amuses me. But tropes are kinda like beams in a house: you sorta need them so the thing won't fall down, but just cuz you can see them doesn't mean you understand architecture, and all the interesting stuff happens between and inside.

Well let me put it this way: knowing all this does not give one the ability to create wonders such as the Chronicles. Nobody has said tropes aren't needful, they are as needful as plot devices (such as Vain). And if played right, they add a great deal. I think Roger is one of the most skillfully concealed and majestically contrived Magnificent Bastards of all time. And yet, in the final analysis, his characterization is only a trope in a classic "good vs. evil" confrontation.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

You see, I am giving Donaldson FAR more credit than some of you think. By giving Roger such and such an analysis, I am actually saving him from being a smaller, less devious trope or minor villain. Indeed, if Roger removed their masks himself, without being coerced by the Command, then he is without doubt the most ingenious villain ever contrived by the mind of man.

On the other hand, there are those on this forum who want to reduce Donaldson's achievement with this character, and this I will always fight against until the next book, or the next, proves me wrong.

[Orlion]

You see, I am giving Donaldson FAR more credit than some of you think. By giving Roger such and such an analysis, I am actually saving him from being a smaller, less devious trope or minor villain. Indeed, if Roger removed their masks himself, without being coerced by the Command, then he is without doubt the most ingenious villain ever contrived by the mind of man.

On the other hand, there are those on this forum who want to reduce Donaldson's achievement with this character, and this I will always fight against until the next book, or the next, proves me wrong.

Which, if nothing else, I'm thankful for this topic. I kinda viewed Roger as just a whiny bastard, but now, it seems like he's...well, a Magnificent Bastard! And your introduction of these ideas leads to some good discussion... I just wouldn't swear by the website... That's what Blake is for!

Good catch on L. Frank Baum, BTW!

[thewormoftheworld'send]

You see, I am giving Donaldson FAR more credit than some of you think. By giving Roger such and such an analysis, I am actually saving him from being a smaller, less devious trope or minor villain. Indeed, if Roger removed their masks himself, without being coerced by the Command, then he is without doubt the most ingenious villain ever contrived by the mind of man.

On the other hand, there are those on this forum who want to reduce Donaldson's achievement with this character, and this I will always fight against until the next book, or the next, proves me wrong.

Which, if nothing else, I'm thankful for this topic. I kinda viewed Roger as just a whiny bastard, but now, it seems like he's...well, a Magnificent Bastard! And your introduction of these ideas leads to some good discussion... I just wouldn't swear by the website... That's what Blake is for!

Good catch on L. Frank Baum, BTW!

I think you're the one who caught on to my point first (at least the first and only one to post positively on it). Sorry, I haven't read Blake, or Faulkner. Yes, having a story end with "then the little boy fell out of bed and woke up" is a trope as old as the hills. And I'm afraid Donaldson is in the position of having to recycle them since at this point in history its kind of difficult to find new ones to invent. So you see, it's just a matter of how good a job he does with the ones we have.

[Orlion]

Hey, it's ultimately just another way to analyze the Chronicles. You like to use television troupes, I perfer Blake's poetic metaphors. What's interesting is that what one method might illuminate, the other can not begin to explain (at the moment, for example, my Blake method can explain how Covenant is Foul, but it can not touch the signifigance of Roger or Jeremiah)

[High Lord Tolkien]

Hey, it's ultimately just another way to analyze the Chronicles. You like to use television troupes, I perfer Blake's poetic metaphors. What's interesting is that what one method might illuminate, the other can not begin to explain (at the moment, for example, my Blake method can explain how Covenant is Foul, but it can not touch the signifigance of Roger or Jeremiah)

Only because you're assuming that they are real and exist outside of a dream and not simply what TC called Troy when he first met him: "something he made up " (not exact quote)

[Orlion]

Hey, it's ultimately just another way to analyze the Chronicles. You like to use television troupes, I perfer Blake's poetic metaphors. What's interesting is that what one method might illuminate, the other can not begin to explain (at the moment, for example, my Blake method can explain how Covenant is Foul, but it can not touch the signifigance of Roger or Jeremiah)

Only because you're assuming that they are real and exist outside of a dream and not simply what TC called Troy when he first met him: "something he made up " (not exact quote)

Are you referring to Roger and Jeremiah?