Joan's Ultimate Fate

[thewormoftheworld'send]

How you would act in a situation in which there is no accountability or consequence for your actions tells us something about your moral character. Covenant's is an anti-consequentialist (thus duty-centered) morality. He has a conscience, his morality is inward-driven. And unlike traditional Christianity, it is not driven by the promise of rewards and the threat of punishment but, simply, by his belief in right and wrong.

I wouldn't say anti-consequentialist. Kantian duty is not in opposition to consequntialism. It's simply a different outlook. I also think beauty was important to Covenant. Beauty, maybe even of the self, is at the center of dreaming, if you accept the dream viewpoint.

I'm not saying that Covenant was a Kantian deontologist at all. But he was a black-and-white moralist, like the Bloodguard. Thus Elena's marrowmeld which fused the features of Covenant and Bannor into a single sculpture.

Beauty was also important to Kant, he wrote a book on the subject. But I don't think Kant is part of the issue here. Covenant was also black-and-white on the issue of preserving the Land's beauty. Kant would say that there is a certain demand in the judgment of beauty, but I think that is only vaguely related to this.

[shadowbinding shoe]

How you would act in a situation in which there is no accountability or consequence for your actions tells us something about your moral character. Covenant's is an anti-consequentialist (thus duty-centered) morality. He has a conscience, his morality is inward-driven. And unlike traditional Christianity, it is not driven by the promise of rewards and the threat of punishment but, simply, by his belief in right and wrong.

I wouldn't say anti-consequentialist. Kantian duty is not in opposition to consequntialism. It's simply a different outlook. I also think beauty was important to Covenant. Beauty, maybe even of the self, is at the center of dreaming, if you accept the dream viewpoint.

I'm not saying that Covenant was a Kantian deontologist at all. But he was a black-and-white moralist, like the Bloodguard. Thus Elena's marrowmeld which fused the features of Covenant and Bannor into a single sculpture.

Beauty was also important to Kant, he wrote a book on the subject. But I don't think Kant is part of the issue here. Covenant was also black-and-white on the issue of preserving the Land's beauty. Kant would say that there is a certain demand in the judgment of beauty, but I think that is only vaguely related to this.

Well, Kant was a completist, he tried to cover everything under the sun in his writings.

I remember that part of the story. But aren't all the different people and characters of the Land (1st chronicle) supposed to reflect sides of Covenant's character? He has just as much of Mhoram and Foamfollower as Bannor in him.

He keeps telling everyone it's not that simple!

Maybe we should look at Covenant from an Aristotelian perspective. The evil act is important and the horrifying results must be dealt with but its the character and motivations of the characters that decide in the end whether they were right or wrong. It encompass the question of dream morality the best.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Well, Kant was a completist, he tried to cover everything under the sun in his writings.

I remember that part of the story. But aren't all the different people and characters of the Land (1st chronicle) supposed to reflect sides of Covenant's character? He has just as much of Mhoram and Foamfollower as Bannor in him.

He keeps telling everyone it's not that simple!

Maybe we should look at Covenant from an Aristotelian perspective. The evil act is important and the horrifying results must be dealt with but its the character and motivations of the characters that decide in the end whether they were right or wrong. It encompass the question of dream morality the best.

Every character in Covenant's dream is bound to reflect some aspect of himself. But if those two you mentioned represent anything in Covenant, they are repressed aspects. Contrast Covenant's grimness with Foamfollower's humor (Covenant can't even smile without having it come out crooked); and his anti-heroism with Mhoram's heroism. Hile Troy represents another opposite to Covenant, action vs. inaction.

With Bannor you find a moral absoluteness that is not the polar opposite of Covenant. Covenant may not agree with it in practice, but in principle it's the same. Therefore, it represents the same mistake. Perhaps you're saying that they all make the same mistake. The Giants' suicide by Raver. Mhoram's Oath of Peace. Troy's hawkish behavior. But if these things are mistakes, then the Chrons are a form of anti-fantasy, since the black-and-white epic struggle forms the very basis of the genre.

And even though Covenant tells everybody "it's not that simple," his personal answer to the Land is downright simplistic. "You're just a dream." Is it really that simple? "I'm going to bring Foul's Creche down around his ears." Isn't that just Hile Troy all over again?

You can look at Covenant from whatever perspective you want and come up with something useful. Perhaps he was a utilitarian: the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It just so happens in the case of the Chrons that the greatest number is zero.

[Thorhammerhand]

Coming back to Joan, we can assume several things

1) She is dead in the 'real' world (although I agree the distinction of real and dream is, at best unimportant)
2) She is dead in the Land (getting the Krill in your lungs would wreck anybodies day)
3) There is some power leakage between the worlds (her ability to summon falls in the land from her hospital bed)

However, IMHO, we need to look at Hile Troy here, he 'died' on earth before/during his summoning. It lead to the conclusion that Joan's death was a way of moving the story forward. As to Joan's consumption by SHE, I doubt it, two reasons (1) she and SHE were geographically seperate at the time of her death and (2) Joan abandoned TC not the other way round, so in some weird way I see Joan's spirit as a sort of anti SHE (C) [No jokes please about carrying tins of 'essence of Joan' to repel of kill SHE]

[wayfriend]

I have to say, I was really stunned when Joan was slain. By Covenant, no less.

I had hoped that Covenant would find some better answer to Joan. Isn't that what the subsequent Chronicles have been about? Finding better answers to Despite?

The only way I can wrap my head around Covenant's motivations here is that this is euthanasia. That Joan was so far gone that there was no healing possible for her, and that death was preferable than the misery and torment that she was enduring. It was a mercy killing.

I can only hope that this is a foil to Covenant's answer for Lord Foul.

The notion that slaying Joan was Covenant's responsibility seems like a central element to this whole scene. And I have not [yet?] grasped all the notions of responsibility that Donaldson is bringing into the story.

For example, serious attention was paid to the fact that Covenant was responsible for Elena's consumption by She. I just don't grasp that. How can he, who summoned Sunder and Hollian, be responsible, while Sunder and Hollian, who actually came up with the idea of feeding Elena to the bane, and then executing the idea, are not responsible? I see shared responsibility at best, and even that is diluted by the circumstance of unforseen consequences, to the point where I would rather call it "contributing factor".

Unless this involves the Timewarden. If, as Timewarden, he had foreseen the controntation with She, had planned on invoking S&H to evade her, and foreseen that S&H would as a result sacrifice Elena, then maybe there's something there. Even though he may not now remember the calculations that led to the choice, he may remember that he had made those calculations and accepted that outcome.

But even allowing for that, surely the Humbled and the Ramen, who also damn Covenant with responsibility for Elena, can't be taking that into account. And yet they come to the same conclusion.

Does Timewarden-calculation also answer why Covenant was "responsible" for Joan? Did he as Timewarden set up the circumstances that required her to be slain? Do the circumstances of unforeseen consequences not come into play here?

What is remarkable, and of narrative importance, is that Covenant not only sees that it needs to be done, but he does it himself. It's been Covenant's constant characterization until AATE that others have done such dirty work. This seems like a significant departure from the pre-Dead Covenant. He displayed something similar in the Lost Deep when he charged into Jeremiah's chamber, performing a rescue personally, where before he would be needing rescue himself. Now that Covenant is finally back, he is markedly more self-sufficient than he was.

Does this represent that he is finally achieving a wholeness that he has not yet had?

As for the notion that he is slaying his own self-loathing for lepers, this is just wrong to me for a myriad of reasons. First, the whole lesson of the First Chronicles is subverted - you can't go around treating people as mere dream material and then live with yourself. Second, "cutting it out with a knife" is not an answer to self-loathing that I can respect. And, third, I'd have to think that, by now, Covenant has gotten past loathing himself for being a leper. Didn't he insist on his leprosy not being cured because he needed it? He respects his disease as a strength as well as a weakness, and he doesn't loathe himself for having it.

Whatever Joan may represent, Covenant is not slaying her for what she represents. At least, not in any way that I can see.

We do know (as Donalson says in the GI, quoted above) is that Joan is not Evil, she is Mad. Deranged. Covenant's answer to Madness need not be the same as his answer to Evil. Which is the answer we were promised, and that I yet wait for.

[Vraith]

First off, yes [as in another thread] there is a wholeness to TC, wherever that idea sprang from, I think you nailed it.

I think it was a mercy killing...a setting free...even a redemption of her, or at least forgiving.

On the responsibility...I see this in play with a couple things. The necessity of freedom [I think, without examining too closely] implies responsibility for the outcomes whether they are predictable or not...and most outcomes are not. But also in this mix is a complication/mitigation or maybe ameliorative counter-force: Many [I'm seriously tempted to say all] of the characters/groups make judgements/determinations based on specific outcomes, at least sometimes [the Haruchai and the Elohim pretty much always do so]. Yet there are two things, with multiple reiterations, working across/against this grain, opposing the equivalence of responsibility with blame:
One, that it ain't over yet. How often have we seen what appears to be an outcome either not be an outcome at all or, with time and knowledge, transform into something else?
The other...there is an idea, a thread, that acts are not to be judged by outcomes, at least not solely by outcomes. That the prime factor in judgement is the intention. Clearest, most obvious and definitive [paraphrasing] "such actions, no matter what outcome, cannot serve Despite.
[I think I might have said that somewhere before...sorry for the repeat, if so].
On the specific point killing Joan being TC's responsibility...one piece of that is only TC could do it properly...because only he had the understanding and love of her to act out of appropriate intention, and not out of judgement.

[Zarathustra]

Perhaps Covenant needed to kill Joan for reasons similar to why Sunder needed to kill Caer-Caveral (i.e. to transform them into something larger, provide for an unforeseen hope). And the mechanics to get that done could be similar, as well. After all, it was done with the same tool (krill). And even though it was necessary for good reasons, it was done for "bad" reasons: the death of Hollian was "necessary" to motivate Sunder to do this. His grief was necessary. (Perhaps just as Linden's despair was necessary to bring back TC). So following this line of reasoning, maybe TC's loathing of leprosy was necessary, in some part, to kill Joan. Without that loathing, he wouldn't have had the heart to do it. And that's another reason for him to not want to be healed. He needed his leprosy not only because he had accepted it as part of himself, but also because he had accepted the loathing as part of himself, too. After all, coming to grips with our mortality doesn't mean that we like it.

However, this does feel a bit circular (or just paradoxical?), using his loathing to motivate him to kill (the symbol of) his loathing. Hmm ... I can't tell if it makes perfect sense or if it's a contradictory mess.

At any rate, I don't think any of this necessarily means that Covenant literally needs to kill Joan because of what she represents metaphorically. This deed could also make sense in terms of pure character relationships, and work on both levels. But it has to be part of the answer, otherwise SRD would have never said:

For Covenant, she is, and perhaps has always been, the question he must answer: Is that me? Is it a part of me? And if it is, what do I do about it? How can I live with it?

"That" and "it" here must mean his self-loathing. He's still asking whether that's part of him, and he's deciding what to do about it. Now we know (sort of) what he did about it. He killed her. What this means, I suspect, will be revealed in the next book.

[Orlion]

We are assuming that we are seeing the last of Joan... maybe she'll come back as a ghost... I mean, Covenant and Hile Troy have continued in the Land despite being killed in both worlds. An ultimate solution may be forthcoming, but sometimes you have to make tough choices to get there.

I like that Joan's last sight was of the Ranyhyn coming towards her and not of the Ranyhyn murdering her.

[wayfriend]

On the specific point killing Joan being TC's responsibility...one piece of that is only TC could do it properly...because only he had the understanding and love of her to act out of appropriate intention, and not out of judgement.

So he's responsible, not out of blame, but out of requirement?

[Orlion]

On the specific point killing Joan being TC's responsibility...one piece of that is only TC could do it properly...because only he had the understanding and love of her to act out of appropriate intention, and not out of judgement.

So he's responsible, not out of blame, but out of requirement?

In Joan's case, he willingly took responsibility over her before the beginning of the Second Chronicles.

Makes me wonder how Linden will react to the news.

[Vraith]

For Covenant, she is, and perhaps has always been, the question he must answer: Is that me? Is it a part of me? And if it is, what do I do about it? How can I live with it?

"That" and "it" here must mean his self-loathing. He's still asking whether that's part of him, and he's deciding what to do about it. Now we know (sort of) what he did about it. He killed her. What this means, I suspect, will be revealed in the next book.

I suspect the same. But there are a couple things that lead me to see this, as it stands, in a more positive light than it seems you do [or I'm misinterpreting you, of course, and you aren't being less positive]. A shift from loathing the one with the disease to loathing the disease and its effects. He denied healing to remind himself of the difference between "I have an illness," and "I am my illness," to keep "present" both the fact of limits and, yes, loathing, and paths to transcend them.
But Joan...there is almost nothing left of her except illness. And death, here, is something different than just "the end."
"He killed her," to me is "He restored her." Especially because of what O mentioned...the Ranyhyn and her perception of them. She died awake and immersed in the only remnant of her essential joy and self.
It interests me that, in a way, when he WAS self-loathing he DID think he killed her, metaphorically...by getting the disease, made her what she was. Now he's literally killed her [though..heh...back home, she was already dead], and so saved her.
Though, O, I have a hard time imagining a recurrence of Joan that I won't find disappointing [one, though even it is...meh, so so...but hey, that's part of what great authors are for...to turn meh's into WOW!'s]

[dlbpharmd]

Perhaps Covenant needed to kill Joan for reasons similar to why Sunder needed to kill Caer-Caveral (i.e. to transform them into something larger, provide for an unforeseen hope).

That is an interesting thought! It would provide redemption for Joan, but it seems a little too deus ex machina for my taste.

[wayfriend]

Yes, but isn't the Timewarden a deus?

It sure looks to me like some of the things Covenant hung on to when he became mortal was his need for the krill and an imperative to handle Joan. This all could have been plotted out by the Timewarden.

There's no reason to suspect that there was any intention beyond ending the caesures and getting the white gold out of Foul's reach. These are important anough goals that we don't need to imagine larger goals.

But they are certainly possible. Joan is Dead, not dead.

And I would be pleased to see Joan end the series in something other than torment and fear.