Kevin's Watch

Wait a minute..I fall in Love with a woman . I'm guilty of what? Guilty of not falling in Love with her sister..her mother..all women?? What is being said here about guilt of a good deed? All IS Subjective seems to me. If that is the case,,which it looks like..then Guilt isn't even the right word or concept...imho.

There are, at least, two forms of guilt. One where we make ourselves culpable (the doctor losing the patient, the rape of Lena) and another where others make us culpable (like how people treated TC's leporsy or how the snubbed sister or mother might feel). In the second case, people are trying to use guilt as a force (power) to make someone do something. Of course, that all depends on how the accussed takes that guilt. When we personally feel guilt, it can paralyze us and allow others to control the consequences. At the same time, it can be a motivator to be a better person. Lord Foul wanted TC to feel guilt so that he would surrender himself to despair and destroy everything. What he didn't realize was that TC could (and did) use that same guilt as a driving force to kick his ass.

Yes, this is the difference between percieved guilt and actual guilt. Percieved can further be broken down into percieved guilt in oneself, or percieved in another - neither is a confirmation of actual guilt. The phrase 'Guilt is power' does not stipulate as to what form of guilt is refered to, neither does the text of the !st Chrons state it overtly. We are left I guess, as discerning readers, to fathom this out for ourselves. This is where I clearly come unstuck - I tend to read books on the surface and not to see deeper intent. To me the 1st Chrons was just the BEST story I had ever read (still is - always will be), it was really only when I joined the Watch that the deeper stuff was revealed to me.

Orlion wrote:There are, at least, two forms of guilt. One where we make ourselves culpable (the doctor losing the patient, the rape of Lena) and another where others make us culpable (like how people treated TC's leporsy or how the snubbed sister or mother might feel). In the second case, people are trying to use guilt as a force (power) to make someone do something. Of course, that all depends on how the accussed takes that guilt. When we personally feel guilt, it can paralyze us and allow others to control the consequences. At the same time, it can be a motivator to be a better person. Lord Foul wanted TC to feel guilt so that he would surrender himself to despair and destroy everything. What he didn't realize was that TC could (and did) use that same guilt as a driving force to kick his ass.

I too like it simple! This is how I see it.

(Though by the second Chronicles, the gap between their willingness to assume personal responsibility/guilt for their own choices and their willingness to excuse the others actions and deny the need for responsibility between TC and Linden was too great for my liking... though perhaps what I read as excusal was merely necessary forgiveness to enable the other to move on positively.)

This topic has been popping into my head at inconvenient times the last couple days [gee...thanks for the brain-loop, peter!]. That usually means something is bugging me, and I can't quite grab it...
ATM, I have the feeling/intuition that there's a mistake, or maybe just a fuzziness, between being guilty [of something] and feeling guilty. Obviously, the two CAN be connected...but they don't HAVE to be...honestly, most of the really guilty people I know [in the first sense] have absolutely none of it [in the second sense].
Now I'll go back to not thinking about it, and it will pop up and poke me again later...

This topic is not that far removed from the plot of the book LA was given the first day she started in that town/village/hamlet. The guilty try to expunge their guilt through actions. If TC had not been so driven to personify leprosy by his neighbors the man in the ocher robe (the creator) would, possibly not have selected him to be the lands champion. It's not like TC had the only whitegold ring on the planet.

His (TC)perceived guilt gave him the kick in the pants to move, deliver messages, make deals etc. (for further datails read the books )

I agree with Vraith, There is a difference between perceived and actual guilt.

On a side note it is great to be back on the watch.

Thorhammerhand wrote: I agree with Vraith, There is a difference between perceived and actual guilt.

Actually, I'm making a distinction [or trying to] that perception ISN't the point on the emotional definition. It's a matter of fact that if you actually did something, you are "guilty" of that act.
But, it is ALSO a matter of fact whether you "feel" guilty or not.
It isn't like being color-blind, where whether one can "see red" or not determines whether "red" exists or not...it does exist, objectively, it's a wavelength, whether one perceives it or not [HEH! though our perceptions may "color" the experience! ]
It IS [sorta, but not exactly] like getting kicked in the gut, and peeps say "wow, that hurt"...and I say "No, actually, it didn't." No matter anybody's perception, as a matter of fact, it did not hurt...if MY pain does not exist for ME, it simply does not exist AT ALL. [and it isn't a matter of adrenaline, endorphins, drugs, pain thresholds, whatever...or anyway, it can be, but isn't necessarily so.]

Hmmm, wow, a lot of responses, insightful ones, long ones. I think this issue is very simple. Guilt is a powerful motivator. It drives the guilty party to seek forgiveness through acts of penance. The trick of the First Chrons was to use guilt to drive Covenant into taking action, that is, to use power, and thus find a way to forgive himself.

Power is destructive, though. No matter what anyone tried to do, the use of power always seemed to rebound on those utilizing it. That's why the Oath of Peace was instituted, to restrict power in such a way that the rebound wouldn't happen to a significant degree like with the Ritual. Of course, it did rebound. Covenant found a better answer, he didn't use power in any intuitive sense, he simply used what was all ready around him and directed it (I think there's a marital arts discipline like that). Covenant didn't use any personal power, he used the power Foul was conjuring up and directed it right back at Foul.

That's what I think the ring really does, it utilizes the passions, either of the wielder or those around it. If Covenant had used his own passion... I doubt the Land would have been better off (at this point, anyway)

Covenant found a better answer, he didn't use power in any intuitive sense, he simply used what was all ready around him and directed it (I think there's a marital arts discipline like that).

Yeah, it's why the husband never wins the argument.

Typo-related humour aside, you may be thinking of Aikido or Tai Chi.

Good catch

Orlion wrote:Power is destructive, though. No matter what anyone tried to do, the use of power always seemed to rebound on those utilizing it. That's why the Oath of Peace was instituted, to restrict power in such a way that the rebound wouldn't happen to a significant degree like with the Ritual. Of course, it did rebound. Covenant found a better answer, he didn't use power in any intuitive sense, he simply used what was all ready around him and directed it (I think there's a marital arts discipline like that). Covenant didn't use any personal power, he used the power Foul was conjuring up and directed it right back at Foul.

That's what I think the ring really does, it utilizes the passions, either of the wielder or those around it. If Covenant had used his own passion... I doubt the Land would have been better off (at this point, anyway)

In the First Chrons there were only two instances that I know of where the use of power rebounded on the user, those involving Kevin and Elena. And those were for specific reasons. 1. No mortal is wise enough to use the PoC; and, 2. Kevin's thinking errors. The Oath of Peace was overkill, not a remedy for Kevin's type of mistake but a mistake of yet another kind. On the other hand, the people of the Land used small amounts of power all the time without consequence. And Kasreyn of the Gyre in the 2nd Chrons supposedly was able to create perfect works with white gold.

Spoiler

The reason Covenant did not use wild magic against Foul directly was that he did not want to become like that which he hates. Such use would not be a consequence for the Land, only for Covenant. But surely the Land could have benefited greatly in the absence of a Lord Foul (as long as Covenant didn't become a new Landwaster in the process of defeating Foul directly, such as would have been Troy's eventual fate).

Cambo wrote:

Covenant found a better answer, he didn't use power in any intuitive sense, he simply used what was all ready around him and directed it (I think there's a marital arts discipline like that).

Yeah, it's why the husband never wins the argument.

Typo-related humour aside, you may be thinking of Aikido or Tai Chi.

Every really good martial art does that [though Aikido's pure form is the most extreme at it that I know of]...even what I study, which is very offensive [as opposed to defensive, not as opposed to PC] the attacks are made by seeing/positioning/using their weaknesses.
Still...the point is a good one...the main difference between earthpower/wild in execution is that while both have a "key" to start it up, earthpower requires you to keep fueling it to use it...wild magic is more like a nuclear pile...you need to be the control rod or everything goes BOOM. Turning back/channeling lets TC succeed...letting loose would have been otherwise.

Vraith wrote:

Cambo wrote:

Covenant found a better answer, he didn't use power in any intuitive sense, he simply used what was all ready around him and directed it (I think there's a marital arts discipline like that).

Yeah, it's why the husband never wins the argument.

Typo-related humour aside, you may be thinking of Aikido or Tai Chi.

Every really good martial art does that [though Aikido's pure form is the most extreme at it that I know of]...even what I study, which is very offensive [as opposed to defensive, not as opposed to PC] the attacks are made by seeing/positioning/using their weaknesses.
Still...the point is a good one...the main difference between earthpower/wild in execution is that while both have a "key" to start it up, earthpower requires you to keep fueling it to use it...wild magic is more like a nuclear pile...you need to be the control rod or everything goes BOOM. Turning back/channeling lets TC succeed...letting loose would have been otherwise.

Aren't there supposed to be "better solutions" out there besides violence? That's all wild magic amounts to, after all, the use of violence to solve all one's problems. I don't think it would necessarily go out of control, there was an issue with "moral venom," and there was a problem for those inexperienced magic wielders with reigning it in once it got started. But then there was Kasreyn as a good example of someone who was competent with and in control of magic.

If you'll recall at the very end of the first Chrons, we see that Foul's ploy amounted merely to finding someone from another world dumb enough to blow everything up for him, or dumb enough to give him the ring instead. In the second Chrons, this tactic changed to finding someone from another world with enough blackness in their heart, such as Linden.

And then, there is this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyfhzqhJNbg

That last one was a very good point
As far as what I was saying, it really applies mainly to the first chronicles. One must distrust their passions as a source of power before they can utilize them. Something like that, anyway

Orlion wrote:That last one was a very good point
As far as what I was saying, it really applies mainly to the first chronicles. One must distrust their passions as a source of power before they can utilize them. Something like that, anyway

One must limit the passions, unlimited passion leads to destruction, even if just self-destruction, because it is self-blinding, taking on a life of its own and binding the will. Passion bound to the will is creative, or productive.

Not that it adds a great deal - anything really - but the November GI contains the following answer (to the query why didn't Lena appear as part of the Dead in the 2nd Chronicles) which reiterates the central theme of guilt as motivation in the 1st Chronicles:

I didn't want to reintroduce the themes she represents because I was hoping to move beyond them. To move, perhaps, from guilt to restitution or reconciliation (as expressed by Covenant's caamora for the dead Giants in Seareach), which is arguably the main thrust of "The Second Chronicles." (Incidentally, this also explains Elena's appearance as healthy and loving, despite the fact that she wears a very different aspect later. There, unlike "The Last Chronicles," the Dead are trying to bring Covenant what he needs--and he doesn't need reminders of his guilt.

Barnetto wrote:Not that it adds a great deal - anything really - but the November GI contains the following answer (to the query why didn't Lena appear as part of the Dead in the 2nd Chronicles) which reiterates the central theme of guilt as motivation in the 1st Chronicles:

I didn't want to reintroduce the themes she represents because I was hoping to move beyond them. To move, perhaps, from guilt to restitution or reconciliation (as expressed by Covenant's caamora for the dead Giants in Seareach), which is arguably the main thrust of "The Second Chronicles." (Incidentally, this also explains Elena's appearance as healthy and loving, despite the fact that she wears a very different aspect later. There, unlike "The Last Chronicles," the Dead are trying to bring Covenant what he needs--and he doesn't need reminders of his guilt.

That quote could contain a spoiler, but it would explain Elena's bizarre change of attitude between Chrons, and in TWL she tacitly blamed Covenant for her own breaking of Law. Perhaps Donaldson has forgotten this, but Elena was making an effort not to guilt him. The fact is that these characters, dead or alive, don't know that the author's point here is not to guilt Covenant, yet somehow they have the ability to know Donaldson's intent.

The quote itself was not spoilered at the website, so I'll leave it so here. Just so long as we don't talk about Elena's connection with the Nazi Disney Corp. revealed in RotE, we should be just fine

Orlion wrote:The quote itself was not spoilered at the website, so I'll leave it so here. Just so long as we don't talk about Elena's connection with the Nazi Disney Corp. revealed in RotE, we should be just fine

I suppose if you want to follow their rules...