So the author himself is telling us that the dead can and do in fact act, affecting the living world, once the Law of Death has been broken. This explains Kevin's ability to act in the battle with Elena - let's face it, he's hardly passive while causing her demise. It also explains the whole gift thing in the 2nd Chrons - giving someone something, even leaving aside the importance of the gift itself, is clearly an active "act". I don't see any discontinuity there.SRD in the GI wrote: Clearly Kevin *does* act when the Law of Death has been broken. But perhaps the confusion is one of direction (which I tried to explain earlier in the GI); of moving from death toward life instead from life toward death. It might help if you think of Covenant's final place within the Arch of Time as a form of "remaining alive": after all, (in an admittedly specialized sense) nothing is more alive than Time, since without Time there is no life. The breaking of the Law of Life permits Covenant to "act" like a living being even though he's just been killed.
I'm not sure about that. Although the dead clearly act and although their actions clearly affect the material world, they only seem to interact with whoever they are the dead of - I hope that makes sense... you know what I mean, Covenant's dead, Linden's dead, Stave's dead etc. Plus they only act in Andelain and their actions are ones of advice and gifts. The complete exception to this is of course Kevin in Chrons 1, but he had been commanded by the irresistible Power of Command, so that may have put him under far less strictures.Zarathustra wrote:One final note, and then I've got to sleep ... perhaps the apparent inconsistencies about the Dead acting and the necessity of breaking the Law of Life are there because Donaldson didn't really need the Law of Life to be broken for the 2nd Chrons, but knew he'd need it for the LC (e.g. raising TC from the dead). And so his explanations for needing that Law to be broken for the 2nd Chrons feels unsatisfactory because he was planning it for an event he could not reveal until years later.
Absolutely agreed... see above re the dead clearly being capable of action. The breaking of the Law of Life was crucial to the denouement of WGW - it was totally necessary to bring Hollian back so she could restore the Land once Linden had dispelled the SunBane. Bear in mind that Hollian needed to take a far FAR more active part in events - she couldn't be limited to whoever she was the dead of. She needed to heal the Land at least in part, rather than just be limited to hanging around in Andelain, waiting to meet someone to whom she was significant, just to give some advice or maybe a gift. In order for her to be able to fulfil this more active role, she needed to be properly alive again. Hence the need for the Law of Life to be broken - this allows resurrection, as you say.WormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: The Law of Life was broken in order to bring Hollian back, although her resurrection was tenuous and had the effect of limiting both her and Sunder to Andelain. (Sunder was evidently also killed and resurrected at the same time as Hollian was resurrected.) As Hollian stated, "The Law Caer-Caveral broke was the one that kept the dead from crossing back into life." In other words, it is the Law that prevents resurrection ("crossing back into life"), she said nothing about the Dead now being capable of action. And in TWL they were capable of action, they talked and offered gifts; one can also cite the events with Kevin's shade in TIW under Skyweir.
In his GI quote above, SRD draws attention to "Covenant remaining alive" while within the Arch of Time. He states that TC can "act like a living being" while within the AoT. That needs careful consideration - I think what SRD intends by this is that TC keeps some level of humanity while he is TimeWarden. He's not entirely dead - he can experience human emotions such as joy and compassion while he sustains the arch. I don't think he can take much of an active hand while he is TW, though, without risking the shattering of the AoT. I think it's mentioned within the Last Chrons that the only reason he could be as communicative as he was as TimeWarden (e.g. Linden's dreams, Anele's possession) is because the Law of Life had been broken.
That to me is a slight non-sequitur, but only because I don't see the inconsistency that you do. However, as has been commented on many times, there is a strong school of thought that sees Covenant and Foul literally as one. I personally can see an alternate possible explanation...WormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: The argument that makes the most sense is the paradox of Covenant and Foul being one. They are the same although they are fighting for completely opposite goals, they require each other while at the same time contradicting one another, like Yin and Yang.
Could TC's claim here simply be pointing out that in order to perceive something, it needs to be contrasted against something else, and preferably its polar opposite. To use a trite example, you can't see black text on black paper... that black text can be said not to exist because it cannot be perceived. Therefore Evil cannot exist in the absence of Good and vice versa - all you'd have is a seamless stagnant monochrome, one way or the other. The two are intrinsically necessary to and - bizarrely - supportive of each other's existence. Destroying one would de facto destroy the other, because it would become unperceivable.SRD in White Gold Wielder wrote: We aren't enemies, no matter what he says. He and I are one. But he doesn't seem to know that. Or maybe he hates it too much to admit it. Evil can't exist unless the capacity to stand against it also exists. And you and I are the Land - in a manner of speaking, anyway. He's just one side of us. That's his paradox. He's one side of us. We're one side of him. When he killed me, he was really trying to kill the other half of himself.
but it was made in 1984 so I thought maybe a seed was planted after WGW.
