Possible spoiler of "The Last Dark" in the GI?

[ninjaboy]

I just read Donaldson's reply to a question in the G.I. from Ian Boulton that may be a spoiler to 'The Last Dark' (you've been warned!) I discuss the spoiler at the bottom.

Q: How come the people of the land have a command of vocabulary that's almost as good as yours? Cord Bhapa just used the word "guerdon" and I bet he doesn't have a copy of The Oxford English Dictionary. Or even one of your American Webster ones!


Donaldson's answer:-

Spoiler

I'll restrict myself to a short answer. Once you accept the notion that all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind, the explanation is clear. Naturally they know all the words he knows.

He seems to be saying... in fact, he is saying, that every single character in the Chronicles is part of his psyche. He created them. If he created them, then either he's having the mother of all trips and will wake up in a crack-den at the end of the Last Dark, or he's an embodiment of the Creator, or something else. Misdirection perhaps? Or a very incomplete answer?

Thoughts anyone?

Upon re-reading this question I wonder, did Covenant's mind create Linden Avery and everybody else in the "real" world?

That's a point.. We don't know for certain that Covenant actually ever returned from the Land back to the 'real world'.. It could all be in his head from the first time he got knocked out - the Police Car..

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I just read Donaldson's reply to a question in the G.I. from Ian Boulton that may be a spoiler to 'The Last Dark' (you've been warned!) I discuss the spoiler at the bottom.

Q: How come the people of the land have a command of vocabulary that's almost as good as yours? Cord Bhapa just used the word "guerdon" and I bet he doesn't have a copy of The Oxford English Dictionary. Or even one of your American Webster ones!


Donaldson's answer:-

Spoiler

I'll restrict myself to a short answer. Once you accept the notion that all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind, the explanation is clear. Naturally they know all the words he knows.

He seems to be saying... in fact, he is saying, that every single character in the Chronicles is part of his psyche. He created them. If he created them, then either he's having the mother of all trips and will wake up in a crack-den at the end of the Last Dark, or he's an embodiment of the Creator, or something else. Misdirection perhaps? Or a very incomplete answer?

Thoughts anyone?

Upon re-reading this question I wonder, did Covenant's mind create Linden Avery and everybody else in the "real" world?

That's a point.. We don't know for certain that Covenant actually ever returned from the Land back to the 'real world'.. It could all be in his head from the first time he got knocked out - the Police Car..

Could be. I just think if it was a TLD spoiler to begin with, then it wouldn't be on the GI. He always gives the dream answer in relation to such questions as that.

[Zarathustra]

Donaldson tosses out the "It could be Covenant's dream" explanation every once in a while on the GI. It doesn't quite work, however; Covenant is dead in the "real" world.

No one is questioning the reality of things in TC's and LA's "real world." In that world, TC is really dead.

But in the figurative fantasy world, time flows differently. I don't think we can draw direct temporal lines to real world events (such as TC's actual death) and events in the fantasy world. Not only does time flow much faster in the Land relative to the real world, but Time itself is under attack, allowing people to bend this Law. And--most importantly--Covenant became the Timewarden, putting him safely beyond any necessity demanded by the literal world (like the fact of his literal death). To expect that his literal death in the "real" world would impose a barrier upon the symbolic structure of this story would necessitate that the literal world and the figurative world operate by the same logic. However, the figurative fantasy world is clearly a kind of place that defies just this kind of relationship.

Your point also ignores everyone else involved in the story. In the "real" world, people are still dealing with TC. Their lives are still caught up with the issues of his (previous) existence. Therefore, it is appropriate that they would still need some resolution of these issues in the Land. This alone could account for the narrative necessity of Covenant continuing as a character beyond his literal death.

But there's perhaps a more important reason that the Land can still exist as a viable story-telling medium after TC's literal death: the Land itself partakes in, or represents, universal truths which we all share or that we can all access. Lord Foul can be seen as the Despiser in each of us. We all have our own inner Despiser. The truths represented by the Land wouldn't be universal if they ceased when one person died.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Donaldson tosses out the "It could be Covenant's dream" explanation every once in a while on the GI. It doesn't quite work, however; Covenant is dead in the "real" world.

No one is questioning the reality of things in TC's and LA's "real world." In that world, TC is really dead.

But in the figurative fantasy world, time flows differently. I don't think we can draw direct temporal lines to real world events (such as TC's actual death) and events in the fantasy world. Not only does time flow much faster in the Land relative to the real world, but Time itself is under attack, allowing people to bend this Law. And--most importantly--Covenant became the Timewarden, putting him safely beyond any necessity demanded by the literal world (like the fact of his literal death). To expect that his literal death in the "real" world would impose a barrier upon the symbolic structure of this story would necessitate that the literal world and the figurative world operate by the same logic. However, the figurative fantasy world is clearly a kind of place that defies just this kind of relationship.

Your point also ignores everyone else involved in the story. In the "real" world, people are still dealing with TC. Their lives are still caught up with the issues of his (previous) existence. Therefore, it is appropriate that they would still need some resolution of these issues in the Land. This alone could account for the narrative necessity of Covenant continuing as a character beyond his literal death.

But there's perhaps a more important reason that the Land can still exist as a viable story-telling medium after TC's literal death: the Land itself partakes in, or represents, universal truths which we all share or that we can all access. Lord Foul can be seen as the Despiser in each of us. We all have our own inner Despiser. The truths represented by the Land wouldn't be universal if they ceased when one person died.

Yes, and I've said much the same myself here, but Donaldson doesn't go into any such detail.

And also, in the long run, it helps to ask oneself why John Lennon wrote the line "the Walrus was Paul." I don't think Donaldson meant for his readers to become so analytically serious about the Chrons, just as Beatles fans weren't meant to go nuts trying to figure out who the Walrus really is. Because it's just a song, and the Chrons is just a story.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, and I've said much the same myself here, but Donaldson doesn't go into any such detail.

Sure he does, just not in this particular answer.

From the GI:

Look at the issue from a different perspective. How could I sustain, even briefly, the internal integrity of Covenant's Unbelief if he couldn't even talk to the people he meets? If the whole experience is a form of hallucination, which he desperately strives to believe--if it's all being generated inside his own failing mind--then *of course* everyone else speaks his language. What else could they possibly speak?

(Obviously "inhuman creatures" like the Waynhim and ur-viles are a different case. Since they represent alien concepts in Covenant's thinking, he wouldn't *expect* to understand them.)
(10/25/2010)

... Herem, Sheol, Jehannum, moksha, turiya, samadhi, several of the Ramen names, and *Kevin* (for God's sake!), not to mention Sunder, are all real words from our world. And then there's the curious fact that Covenant and Linden experience virtually no language barriers anywhere. As you point out, such details can't undermine Covenant's insistence that the Land is not real. If he is effectively "dreaming," what would compose the dream if not the hidden contents of his own mind?

Covenant's Unbelief has its own peculiar integrity, and I deliberately gave it as much support as I could.

(09/17/2004)

I don't know why readers find this concept so difficult to grasp, despite my many efforts to explain it. But whether or not you choose to believe that the Land is "real" independent of Covenant's and Linden's perception of it, you simply have to accept the fact that I derived *all* of the original content of the Land (including its languages, characters, names, and magicks) from my understanding of Covenant's mind and experiences. To the best of my (admittedly flawed) abilities, I have striven mightily throughout "The Chronicles" to preserve the theoretical possibility that everything in the Land flows outward from the many layers of Covenant's consciousness--and later of Linden's. So words like "Satansfist" and "christened" (and moksha, turiya, and samadhi, and Sheol, Herem, and Jehannum, and others far too numerous to count) *fit* my intentions because they can be justified by Covenant's (and then Linden's) prior knowledge of such notions. By this standard, there is no substantive difference between a name like Satansfist and one like, say, Mhoram.

Readers clearly have strong--and divergent--opinions about the implications of what I'm doing. Which is all well and good, as far as it goes. But it has no real bearing on how *I* think about what I'm doing. *Thematically* the story has left the idea of "unbelief" behind; but that doesn't free me to change the rules I've established for myself in "The Chronicles".

(11/03/2008)

On the issue of the Land's reality, he has written much. This is merely a taste:

Do you see my point? The Land has no tangible, verifiable "reality," not even to Covenant and Linden. Yet they--and I--and many of my readers--assign importance/value to the Land. Isn't it therefore "real" precisely because we make it so? And isn't that really the position at which Covenant himself arrives at the end of "The Power that Preserves"?
(06/11/2004)

There are many more GI entries where he goes into greater detail, especially on the reality of the Land issue. We discussed them in excruciating detail in threads of the 1st and 2nd Chrons forum. I'll dig those up and provide the links when I have the time.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Yes, and I've said much the same myself here, but Donaldson doesn't go into any such detail.

Sure he does, just not in this particular answer.

Of course, not those particular answers concerning the astute language capabilities of Stonedowners, only for questions where he is directly asked about the Land's reality. But I am saying that this other answer also applies to those questions about language ability.

In many ways you're preaching to the choir here because I myself have posted on my theories about universal unconsciousness and the Jungian aspects of the Chrons.

From the GI:

Look at the issue from a different perspective. How could I sustain, even briefly, the internal integrity of Covenant's Unbelief if he couldn't even talk to the people he meets? If the whole experience is a form of hallucination, which he desperately strives to believe--if it's all being generated inside his own failing mind--then *of course* everyone else speaks his language. What else could they possibly speak?

(Obviously "inhuman creatures" like the Waynhim and ur-viles are a different case. Since they represent alien concepts in Covenant's thinking, he wouldn't *expect* to understand them.)
(10/25/2010)

... Herem, Sheol, Jehannum, moksha, turiya, samadhi, several of the Ramen names, and *Kevin* (for God's sake!), not to mention Sunder, are all real words from our world. And then there's the curious fact that Covenant and Linden experience virtually no language barriers anywhere. As you point out, such details can't undermine Covenant's insistence that the Land is not real. If he is effectively "dreaming," what would compose the dream if not the hidden contents of his own mind?

Covenant's Unbelief has its own peculiar integrity, and I deliberately gave it as much support as I could.

(09/17/2004)

I don't know why readers find this concept so difficult to grasp, despite my many efforts to explain it. But whether or not you choose to believe that the Land is "real" independent of Covenant's and Linden's perception of it, you simply have to accept the fact that I derived *all* of the original content of the Land (including its languages, characters, names, and magicks) from my understanding of Covenant's mind and experiences. To the best of my (admittedly flawed) abilities, I have striven mightily throughout "The Chronicles" to preserve the theoretical possibility that everything in the Land flows outward from the many layers of Covenant's consciousness--and later of Linden's. So words like "Satansfist" and "christened" (and moksha, turiya, and samadhi, and Sheol, Herem, and Jehannum, and others far too numerous to count) *fit* my intentions because they can be justified by Covenant's (and then Linden's) prior knowledge of such notions. By this standard, there is no substantive difference between a name like Satansfist and one like, say, Mhoram.

Readers clearly have strong--and divergent--opinions about the implications of what I'm doing. Which is all well and good, as far as it goes. But it has no real bearing on how *I* think about what I'm doing. *Thematically* the story has left the idea of "unbelief" behind; but that doesn't free me to change the rules I've established for myself in "The Chronicles".

(11/03/2008)

On the issue of the Land's reality, he has written much. This is merely a taste:

Do you see my point? The Land has no tangible, verifiable "reality," not even to Covenant and Linden. Yet they--and I--and many of my readers--assign importance/value to the Land. Isn't it therefore "real" precisely because we make it so? And isn't that really the position at which Covenant himself arrives at the end of "The Power that Preserves"?
(06/11/2004)

There are many more GI entries where he goes into greater detail, especially on the reality of the Land issue. We discussed them in excruciating detail in threads of the 1st and 2nd Chrons forum. I'll dig those up and provide the links when I have the time.

I appreciate the research you've already done, I don't see any reason to carry on, and many of my posts have also formed some of that excruciating detail you've mentioned.

And as I said in a recent post, it's just a story after all.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Readers clearly have strong--and divergent--opinions about the implications of what I'm doing. Which is all well and good, as far as it goes. But it has no real bearing on how *I* think about what I'm doing. *Thematically* the story has left the idea of "unbelief" behind; but that doesn't free me to change the rules I've established for myself in "The Chronicles".

(11/03/2008)

To me, that's the most interesting part of those quotes. I've certainly drawn my own implications of this recently where I stated that the true saga of the Unbeliever ended with Covenant's reconciliation of fantasy and reality at the end of TPTP. So in order to continue the story, it becomes necessary to bring in a new "real" world character with her own set of undesirable and problematic personality traits and psychological defense mechanisms.

But who has ever mentioned the idea of Donaldson breaking the very rules that he himself set forth for his fantasy story? Not I. The formula to Donaldson's success remains, along with all the rules, even as the Land itself has undergone various changes.

[Zarathustra]

But who has ever mentioned the idea of Donaldson breaking the very rules that he himself set forth for his fantasy story? Not I.

You're asking that question in a thread which poses this issue as if it's a major spoiler. My only intention here is to show that this is not a spoiler--it's essential to the Chronicles. It's a point Donaldson has been addressing for years. Apparently, there are still many people who are unaware of this, because we have two threads here which began with this very same GI quote and thought it implied something they didn't know, something none of us were supposed to know yet.

In many ways you're preaching to the choir here ... I don't see any reason to carry on ...

My posts aren't just aimed at you, but also everyone involved in this thread and this issue. (See above.)

...many of my posts have also formed some of that excruciating detail you've mentioned...

Very good. However, the discussions I was talking about predate your membership here. If you've added to the subject in the meantime, I've either forgotten or didn't read it. Neither of these possibilities rule out the possibility that other, newer members might appreciate the discussion. However, if no one else is interested, I won't bother. I suppose anyone is free to search the site archives if they really care.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

But who has ever mentioned the idea of Donaldson breaking the very rules that he himself set forth for his fantasy story? Not I.

You're asking that question in a thread which poses this issue as if it's a major spoiler. My only intention here is to show that this is not a spoiler--it's essential to the Chronicles. It's a point Donaldson has been addressing for years. Apparently, there are still many people who are unaware of this, because we have two threads here which began with this very same GI quote and thought it implied something they didn't know, something none of us were supposed to know yet.

In many ways you're preaching to the choir here ... I don't see any reason to carry on ...

My posts aren't just aimed at you, but also everyone involved in this thread and this issue. (See above.)

...many of my posts have also formed some of that excruciating detail you've mentioned...

Very good. However, the discussions I was talking about predate your membership here. If you've added to the subject in the meantime, I've either forgotten or didn't read it. Neither of these possibilities rule out the possibility that other, newer members might appreciate the discussion. However, if no one else is interested, I won't bother. I suppose anyone is free to search the site archives if they really care.

I'm glad you mentioned where you were trying to go with this line of reasoning.

It's only an issue because Donaldson made it an issue, he opened this can of worms through the very first Chrons. Stephen King writes similar kinds of stories (e.g., Dark Tower) but his characters never question the reality of any of it so there's no issue.

I don't understand why Donaldson mentioned the idea of changing his own rules in the context of reader speculations and analyses over the questions of reality and unbelief. Donaldson created a long series of books that brings up more questions than it answers. King created a long series of books that, in the end, one can just put aside as mission accomplished.

[Horrim Carabal]

King created a long series of books that, in the end, one can just put aside as mission accomplished.

Mission accomplished, perhaps. But that Dark Tower series ended with what I believe was an incredible thud.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

King created a long series of books that, in the end, one can just put aside as mission accomplished.

Mission accomplished, perhaps. But that Dark Tower series ended with what I believe was an incredible thud.

Yes, no question about that. And that was my point.

[ParanoiA]

Spoiler

I'll restrict myself to a short answer. Once you accept the notion that all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind, the explanation is clear. Naturally they know all the words he knows.

This does not imply it's a dream or hallucination, at all to me. That would stand to reason in our world, our physical laws, but not in The Land. We have plenty of examples of creatures that are "made". We don't know that Covenant didn't create the Land with his thoughts - not a dream - but a tangible reality created by his mind.

Ok, maybe that's stupid...

[TheFallen]

Spoiler

I'll restrict myself to a short answer. Once you accept the notion that all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind, the explanation is clear. Naturally they know all the words he knows.

I don't know why readers find this concept so difficult to grasp, despite my many efforts to explain it. But whether or not you choose to believe that the Land is "real" independent of Covenant's and Linden's perception of it, you simply have to accept the fact that I derived *all* of the original content of the Land (including its languages, characters, names, and magicks) from my understanding of Covenant's mind and experiences. To the best of my (admittedly flawed) abilities, I have striven mightily throughout "The Chronicles" to preserve the theoretical possibility that everything in the Land flows outward from the many layers of Covenant's consciousness--and later of Linden's.

Now apologies for resurrecting an issue that has clearly been picked over countless times in the past but, hey I'm a latecomer... so sue me

It would seem that SRD is almost displaying authorial frustration in the 2nd GI quote above in many of his readers' inability to get what he's driving at. A little harsh, maybe, because whether he likes it or not, he is bound by his own self-established "rules" throughout the Chrons as a whole to balance the Real against the Unreal without firm conclusion either way... as he says himself elsewhere in the GI, he's not "free" to change these. I do have to wonder if these self-imposed strictures are chafing more and more as time goes by? Anyhow...

Therefore SRD is fated to continue walking this tightrope between Belief and Unbelief, the Real and the Unreal, for all that he states that "*thematically* the story has left the idea of "unbelief" behind". Yes self-evidently for TC himself, the issue of Unbelief was resolved at the end of TPTP and therefore is no longer relevant, so allowing SRD to move on to examining other metaphysical issues symbolically through narrative. However, is the same true for us, the readership? I don't think so... at the risk of over-rationalising, it's not over yet.

I can see where Worm above is attempting to go with his reference to a Jung-style Collective Unconscious and also acknowledge Zarathustra's point that there is no necessity for the "real" and the "symbolic" worlds to operate by the same logic. Having said that, for me, neither interpretation entirely satisfies - IMO, they're both a little woolly and if valid, the result for me would be that I was intended to view the Chrons in their entirety as one hugely long didactic allegory. That doesn't sit well with me... I don't believe that is SRD's objective.

Personally, I always squared this difficult circle by walking my own tightrope between the Land being real (duh! Simplistic ) and the Land being illusory - an almost Cartesian externalised expressionism of TC's (and later Linden's) internal (sub)consciousness. That balance is now nigh on impossible for me to achieve, solely because if I am to accept the "real" world as portrayed in the narrative as true, both TC and Linden are dead. So given that I hugely doubt that SRD is trying to make a universal assertion of life - or at least some form of consciousness - after real-world death, my personal juggling act as a reader is now seriously in trouble .

[Zarathustra]

I don't see Donaldson making an assertion about life after death. I think he's talking about timeless universal truths, and using life after death in a fantasy world of universal archetypes to symbolize this.

Donaldson has said that he thinks of the Land as *more* real than the real world, in a sense. That "sense" is exactly what is difficult to put into words, because of course (paradoxically!) it's also less real.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Spoiler

I'll restrict myself to a short answer. Once you accept the notion that all of these characters find their genesis in Covenant's mind, the explanation is clear. Naturally they know all the words he knows.

I don't know why readers find this concept so difficult to grasp, despite my many efforts to explain it. But whether or not you choose to believe that the Land is "real" independent of Covenant's and Linden's perception of it, you simply have to accept the fact that I derived *all* of the original content of the Land (including its languages, characters, names, and magicks) from my understanding of Covenant's mind and experiences. To the best of my (admittedly flawed) abilities, I have striven mightily throughout "The Chronicles" to preserve the theoretical possibility that everything in the Land flows outward from the many layers of Covenant's consciousness--and later of Linden's.

Now apologies for resurrecting an issue that has clearly been picked over countless times in the past but, hey I'm a latecomer... so sue me

It would seem that SRD is almost displaying authorial frustration in the 2nd GI quote above in many of his readers' inability to get what he's driving at. A little harsh, maybe, because whether he likes it or not, he is bound by his own self-established "rules" throughout the Chrons as a whole to balance the Real against the Unreal without firm conclusion either way... as he says himself elsewhere in the GI, he's not "free" to change these. I do have to wonder if these self-imposed strictures are chafing more and more as time goes by? Anyhow...

Therefore SRD is fated to continue walking this tightrope between Belief and Unbelief, the Real and the Unreal, for all that he states that "*thematically* the story has left the idea of "unbelief" behind". Yes self-evidently for TC himself, the issue of Unbelief was resolved at the end of TPTP and therefore is no longer relevant, so allowing SRD to move on to examining other metaphysical issues symbolically through narrative. However, is the same true for us, the readership? I don't think so... at the risk of over-rationalising, it's not over yet.

I can see where Worm above is attempting to go with his reference to a Jung-style Collective Unconscious and also acknowledge Zarathustra's point that there is no necessity for the "real" and the "symbolic" worlds to operate by the same logic. Having said that, for me, neither interpretation entirely satisfies - IMO, they're both a little woolly and if valid, the result for me would be that I was intended to view the Chrons in their entirety as one hugely long didactic allegory. That doesn't sit well with me... I don't believe that is SRD's objective.

Personally, I always squared this difficult circle by walking my own tightrope between the Land being real (duh! Simplistic ) and the Land being illusory - an almost Cartesian externalised expressionism of TC's (and later Linden's) internal (sub)consciousness. That balance is now nigh on impossible for me to achieve, solely because if I am to accept the "real" world as portrayed in the narrative as true, both TC and Linden are dead. So given that I hugely doubt that SRD is trying to make a universal assertion of life - or at least some form of consciousness - after real-world death, my personal juggling act as a reader is now seriously in trouble .

Yes, I've related that Jungian collective unconscious theory a few times. And I think there are references on the GI to support it. But I've also said the Chrons is just a story and not a philosophical treatise. The readers are allowed to make up their own minds about the source of it all, there is no single answer. As Donaldson might say, the real Creator of the Land is the author himself. We can take this to whatever level you want. And the Land's real Creator is working from unconscious impulses not even he understands.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I don't see Donaldson making an assertion about life after death. I think he's talking about timeless universal truths, and using life after death in a fantasy world of universal archetypes to symbolize this.

Donaldson has said that he thinks of the Land as *more* real than the real world, in a sense. That "sense" is exactly what is difficult to put into words, because of course (paradoxically!) it's also less real.

In Plato's sense, the symbolic or ideal is equivalent with the Absolute. The Form or Essence of reality is that which never changes, whereas the world of perception is always in flux.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Who doesn't go around using words like "irenic" and "cynosure" in their daily vocabulary?

If you do not, then why don't you?

[Horrim Carabal]

If the Land is not real, then Foul's got to be even more pissed.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

If the Land is not real, then Foul's got to be even more pissed.

Define reality.

[Vraith]

If the Land is not real, then Foul's got to be even more pissed.

Define reality.

Any 'place' of any description where 'somethings' can, and usually do, say ridiculous things like "Define reality."