Kevin's Watch

Wildling wrote:Maybe 4-6 were destroyed by the sunbane. It killed off most everything else right?

A variation on the same idea is that the Clave could have destroyed any that it found.

There is a more general issue here, which is that throughout the Chronicles we're reminded of the interprenetration of opposites, e.g. Creation and Despite, life and death, Findail and Vain. We also see that events and actions that are necessary to achieve the eventual defeat of Foul and his servants at one time create the potential for their later recovery (two examples: Covenant's destruction of the Staff of Law;

Spoiler

Nom's rending of samadhi Sheol

) and I could probably, if I thought about it hard enough, think of examples of apparent victories for evil creating the subsequent conditions for the success of good. As Mhoram said, "there is hope in contradiction", and this is one of the key themes of the Chronicles, and relevant to this thread.

DrPaul wrote:

Wildling wrote:Maybe 4-6 were destroyed by the sunbane. It killed off most everything else right?

A variation on the same idea is that the Clave could have destroyed any that it found.

Heh...good thought, and perhaps...but it makes me think:

With the fact that they're serving LF [however unintentionally] and especially with a Raver in charge, I think they would have been more likely to learn and wield them to the maximum extent possible [though their understanding and the work done would both be corrupted versions, of course, whether they knew it or not, thus corrupting even more thoroughly].

Do we really consider the people of the first chronicles as passionless? The Oath of Peace is in real world terms a belief in abiding by the Law and not taking personal vengence. It's ludicrous to believe they don't feel things even if they don't act on them. Triock is not apathetic in the face of his beloved's suffering and what's more, I can't accept the idea that Trell has a stronger character because he gives in to his personal pain and Desecrate the Hall of Lords while Triock holds on to his beliefs.

I have to wonder why exactly a capacity to lash out in an ecstasy of destructiveness is so essential in Kevin's Lore. Could it mean that the power and its wielding are more important to the user of this lore than the things he serves with it are? If so should we not agree with Mhoram and his fellows that this lore is fundamentally flawed?

Very definitely Shoe - and for this reason it was ultimately (and rightly) abandoned.

peter wrote:Very definitely Shoe - and for this reason it was ultimately (and rightly) abandoned.

And because of that [plus the broken Law] they were completely fooled and corrupted...they couldn't even tell they were working evil while believing it good. They actually thought they were resisting the evil they were creating and strengthening.

No. It is integral to the world [might be integral to our real world] that there is no power that can only be used for good.

Trell wasn't a stronger character for giving in to despair, but he had access to more power [destruction is always easier than creation]. He was only capable of that despair, though, because he was also capable of its opposite, because he knew it well.

Vraith wrote:Trell wasn't a stronger character for giving in to despair, but he had access to more power [destruction is always easier than creation]. He was only capable of that despair, though, becauhse he was also capable of its opposite, because he knew it well.[/color]

And the flipside of this is that Mhoram was capable of the opposite, which enabled him to defeat Satansfist and thus ensure Revelstone could hold out until Covenant defeated Foul. However, because he knew what negative passions could unlock from Kevin's Lore he guided the Lords to a search for a more conservative lore after The First Chronicles. The question is whether he and his successors were able to know what the destruction of the Staff of Law would enable.

DrPaul wrote:

Vraith wrote:Trell wasn't a stronger character for giving in to despair, but he had access to more power [destruction is always easier than creation]. He was only capable of that despair, though, becauhse he was also capable of its opposite, because he knew it well.[/color]

And the flipside of this is that Mhoram was capable of the opposite, which enabled him to defeat Satansfist and thus ensure Revelstone could hold out until Covenant defeated Foul. However, because he knew what negative passions could unlock from Kevin's Lore he guided the Lords to a search for a more conservative lore after The First Chronicles. The question is whether he and his successors were able to know what the destruction of the Staff of Law would enable.

My guess is they had no idea what the staff actually did. I think to them it was a big stick that could let you do some nifty stuff.

Vraith wrote:And because of that [plus the broken Law] they were completely fooled and corrupted...they couldn't even tell they were working evil while believing it good. They actually thought they were resisting the evil they were creating and strengthening.

There is a very long time interval between Mhoram's decision to follow a new path and the beginning of the Land's corruption. It wasn't only the Lords, even Carreiol Wildwood was fooled into believing utopia was reached. It might be that, like in Decarte's philosophy, without the Staff (the Ideal of all staffs) it was impossible for the dwellers of the Land to grasp its purpose and that is why an outsider was needed to correct this flaw in their world.


Notice also that if we compare the time of prosperity immediately after Mhoram's time (when Foul didn't yet have the power to influence and corrupt things) and the time of the old Lords we notice that while Mhoram's followers work dealt chiefly in healing and other peaceful pursuits, the old lords constantly were embroiled in fights with Foul, the Ravers, the Vile tribe, going back to their very beginning: the fight against the mad king. Their Lore was from the start built around martial needs.

The needs of a time of peace are not the same as those of a time of war. Patience and dedication would be more important than ferocity.

Vraith wrote:And because of that [plus the broken Law] they were completely fooled and corrupted...they couldn't even tell they were working evil while believing it good. They actually thought they were resisting the evil they were creating and strengthening.

And in that they became exactly the same as Kevin Landwaster (and to a lesser extent Trell) who also failed in this respect. I think it should be remembered (as pointed out above) that it was Mhoram who abandoned Kevins Lore. He was nothing if not far-sighted and would not have failed to see the down-side of such an abandonment but clearly thought it worth the cost. That the future did not go 'according to plan' can not be laid at his door - it is the task of each generation to build upon the oppertunities given it by the last and it's descent into corruption (or otherwise) cannot rest on the shoulders of those who went before. The Claves emergence could not have been predicted from the abandonment of Kevins Lore and neither would it's retainment have prevented Foul's re-emergence in some guise or another in any case. (q.e.d. )

Vraith wrote:
No. It is integral to the world [might be integral to our real world] that there is no power that can only be used for good.

I quoted myself, cuz I think y'all are making some speculative trips/stories that are interesting, but still missing the point.

Which is the above. It wasn't the Lore itself. The same thing would have happened with EVERY Lore.
An "Oath of Peace" will inherently limit every one of those paths to power.
Because it is not possible to achieve the full potential of any power/knowledge/life without passion.
And that is especially/particularly true of Earthpower. Earthpower IS life, IS, in some sense, passion.

shadowbinding shoe wrote:I have to wonder why exactly a capacity to lash out in an ecstasy of destructiveness is so essential in Kevin's Lore.

Because the capacity to lash out is essential to humanity. A central theme of the Chronicles is to learn how to accept yourself as human - flawed and destructive as we are - and move forward. Kevin turned his passion inward and destroyed himself; Mhoram accepted the ecstacy, stopped fearing himself, and turned it outward in order to destroy his enemies.

Should they then, have abandoned 'The Oath' and retained 'The Lore'?

peter wrote:Should they then, have abandoned 'The Oath' and retained 'The Lore'?

Maybe, but not only or necessarily the path of the Lore [cuz Law had been broken, corruption was seeping into the power itself..it wouldn't have worked the same...hell, they might not even have ever FOUND all the other pieces, considering how much the rules changed].
Or they could have modified the Oath [or better yet their methods of pursuing it as a goal...so they were confronting/overcoming despair instead of blocking/denying it.]

No "way" would have prevented the general trend of events.
The problem with the "Oath," [similar to a problem in LC's situation]
isn't so much that it prevented success [or caused failure].
The problem is it did those things AND prevented people from being fully people.

Would Thomas Covenant have survived raping Lena without the Oath of Peace safeguarding his life? The Oath "survives" as long as it needs to, and artfully is put aside in the admission that it - and Mhoram (for not trusting Trell) was an instrumental force at a strike against Revelstone's Close.

This is an enormously complicated question (i.e., I believe it is outside the scope of the complexity of the books to answer), since Lena's existence (as she was) might not survive the absence of the oath of peace. We don't really know the ramifications there could have been for the people of the land till TC's entrance. A dedicated spokesperson might even argue back that the people of the land might not have needed TC without the oath - it depends on Earthpower, I suppose, which feels to me like a somehow less defined force than Wild Magic (which is supposed to be undefined and wild).

If we believe that the land reflects TC in some way prior to his entrance into it (I mean if he's structured against the land or vice versa in an active way) then the oath of peace may reflect some aspect of covenant, and its loss may mirror a change in covenant after the first series.

Mhoram accepted the ecstacy, stopped fearing himself, and turned it outward in order to destroy his enemies.

The ecstasy of fear? Mhoram seemed pretty deliberate to me in those scenes where he fought at the end of TPTP...

That is an enormousely complicated question Holesty so forgive me if I stay with Vraith's post for the moment and come back to yours later.

Do you mean here Vraith, it prevented people allowing their normal human reactions and emotions to be expressed and in such, 'emasculated' (bad word) them in respect of achieving their full potential. Yes - that bears thinking about, but in other respects the Oath allowed people plenty of scope in protecting their own, in defending the Land, in acessing Power in the fight against despite. If it prevented people from wrecking the Desecration that was an inherent danger within the Lore (unless it was broken as in Trells case) then this is surely all to the good. It cannot be the case that all use of Power has to be by definition bad. It is the 'heart' with which you perform your terrible duties within a war situation that decides whether you have forfeited your humanity or not, not the unavoidable acts you are forced to commit in the long term good.

peter wrote:That is an enormousely complicated question Holesty so forgive me if I stay with Vraith's post for the moment and come back to yours later.

Do you mean here Vraith, it prevented people allowing their normal human reactions and emotions to be expressed and in such, 'emasculated' (bad word) them in respect of achieving their full potential. Yes - that bears thinking about, but in other respects the Oath allowed people plenty of scope in protecting their own, in defending the Land, in acessing Power in the fight against despite. If it prevented people from wrecking the Desecration that was an inherent danger within the Lore (unless it was broken as in Trells case) then this is surely all to the good. It cannot be the case that all use of Power has to be by definition bad. It is the 'heart' with which you perform your terrible duties within a war situation that decides whether you have forfeited your humanity or not, not the unavoidable acts you are forced to commit in the long term good.

It didn't "allow" all the good things you say so much as prevent many other ones.
It surely didn't prevent Trell's desecration, I'd argue that it caused it.
Because it prevented him from grieving and punishing the cause of his pain.
It doesn't prevent desecration at all.
The Oath forces people to be innocent...
OR to break.
If it is the heart you perform with that matters...which I agree, it is in these...the Oath has cut out half the heart.

But surely Trell in his act of Desecration broke his Oath of Peace - the Oath that would/could have carried him beyond his grief had he adhered to it. I 'know' you far too well to believe the following to be true, but 'grieving and punishing the cause of his pain sounds suspiciously like vengence to me (though I'm sure you will be able to instruct me otherwise )

The answer to Holesty's first question has to be that it is unlikely. Crime does not seem to have been a big feature in the Land (possibly due to Earthsight) and in the absence of an enforcement body to prevent it the likelyhood has to be that reprisal for TC's heinous act would have been both swift and extreme. I'm close to agreeing with you that the scope of the question is almost beyond our level of knowledge to answer - but my gut feeling is that the Old Lords did what they did in good faith and not with deliberate intent to 'sabotage' the works of those who would follow. One point - the ecstacy of fear? I don't think so - I think it was the ecstacy that 'Conan the Barbarian' spoke of when asked "What is lifes greatest pleasure." His immortal reply, "To drive your enemies before you in battle and hear the lamentation of their women." It was the ecstacy of killing, the bloodlust that drove Foamfollwer to pursue the ur-viles after the burning of Soaring Woodhelven and for which he performed the camoora.

peter wrote:But surely Trell in his act of Desecration broke his Oath of Peace - the Oath that would/could have carried him beyond his grief had he adhered to it. I 'know' you far too well to believe the following to be true, but 'grieving and punishing the cause of his pain sounds suspiciously like vengence to me (though I'm sure you will be able to instruct me otherwise )

Ok, I will.
The problem with the Oath of Peace is that it doesn't just deny/forbid certain actions. It is that it denies you the right to FEEL.
It doesn't merely forbid Trell from punching TC's head off, it makes the hurt of grief and longing for justice a "bad act," in itself.
It doesn't simply say taking vengeance is wrong, it says feeling the pain is wrong...deny it, suppress it, get over it.

The issue I want to raise here is that in our "real world" societies we don't have the Oath of Peace but we do have something else that prevents people from taking out their grief on other people who have killed, raped or otherwise seriously harmed their loved ones. It's called the rule of law. Even if we leave aside arguments about issues such as the adequacy of sentences, the death penalty, etc., what is legally right is often not the same as what is morally fair, and court sentences and sanctions often fall short of what crime victims and those close to them feel should be done to the criminal. Also, the legal process doesn't allow e.g. the parents of rape survivors the catharsis of punching the rapist's lights out. Would we then say that the rule of law in our societies denies such people the right to feel what they feel, or makes it wrong for them to feel that? I wouldn't say that. I would say that there are other ways that people should be able to find healing for their hurt. Could the same be said about Trell and the Oath of Peace?