WAS Kevin so wrong to enact the Ritual?

A place to discuss the books in the FC and SC. *Please Note* No LC spoilers allowed in this forum. Do so in the forum below.

Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch

User avatar
Sill
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:31 pm

Was the Ritual of Desecration really so bad?

Post by Sill »

I'm new here so bear with me - I know many of you are really scolars concerning these wonderful books - so here's my question:

Was the Desecration really a totally bad thing? Consider:

Sure, many people may have died, the land was laid waste, and took years to come back, lore was forgotten, but considering the alternative, why do Mhoram and all the new lords condemn this and say things like - "death is better than desecration".

If Lord Foul would have systematcially, and totally defeated the council of old Lords and the Warward - ( which BTW Fouls seems to have almost had in the bag) Foul would have reigned in the land until the end of the Arch of Time.

So, as bad as it was, did Kevin not act with some wisdom, even if it wasn't conscience, in that the land survived to come back, the giants were warned and lived, the Bloodguard were spared, the Ramen and the great horses fled in time. That is better than a total victory by Foul isn't it? The people of the land lived to fight another day and are still fighting and defeating Foul several thousand years later, right?

Thanks for any help.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

Those people loved the earth, with a passion that we probably would not understand. Descrating the earth is on par with killing babies. And, come to think of it, the Ritual of Descration did a lot of that, too.

The strategy behind it may or may not have been sound. But the damage that was done to Kevin, and to anyone who may have chosen it, was ultimately, irreperable. They destroyed that which they loved. They embraced and enacted Despite.

Mhoram said it best. He knew that choosing to destroy that which you love is NOT the same as letting the Despiser do the same.
In [u]The Power That Preserves[/u] was wrote:"You are the High Lord. What does your wisdom teach you?"

"I am the High Lord," Mhoram affirmed simply. "I have no time for blame."

Abruptly, Loerya joined the probing. "And if there is no Creator? Or if the creation is untended?"

"Then who is there to reproach us? We provide the meaning of our own lives. If we serve the Land purely to the furthest limit of our abilities, what more can we ask of ourselves?"

Trevor answered, "Victory, High Lord. If we fail, the Land itself reproaches us. It will be made waste. We are its last preservers."

The force of this thrust smote Mhoram. He found that he still lacked the courage to retort nakedly, Better failure than desecration. Instead, he turned the thrust with a wry smile and said, "The last, Lord Trevor? No. The Haruchai yet live within their mountain fastness. In their way, they know the name of the Earthpower more surely than any Lord. Ramen and Ranyhyn yet live. Many people of the South and North Plains yet live. Many of the Unfettered yet live. Caerroil Wildwood, Forestal of Garroting Deep, has not passed away. And somewhere beyond the Sunbirth Sea is the homeland of the Giants-yes, and of the Elohim and Bhrathair, of whom the Giants sang. They will resist Lord Foul's hold upon the Earth."

"But the Land, High Lord! The Land will be lost! The despiser will wrack it from end to end.''

At once, Mhoram breathed intensely, "By the Seven! Not while one flicker of love or faith remains alive!"
:weep:

Defend to the death. Let no man fail to do his best. Then accept the result. Do not succomb to despair. The Creator has the right to destroy the Land, or to let it be destroyed, but men have not.

We met Kevin. Did he seem like he had no regrets?
.
User avatar
Ur Dead
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Ur Dead »

Even when Thomas was translated to the land. The land was not fully healed. We really don't know why Kevin despaired or what really drove him to it but it supposeily did a lot of damage.
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
User avatar
Sill
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:31 pm

Post by Sill »

Thank you both for the responses - I know their heart for the land, but that was exactly their weakness right? Not doing what had to be done? And that was/is TC's strength - Not that he doesn't love the land also, but he'll do whatever it takes - risk ANYTHING - As much as I love Mhoram, he and the other's turned their backs on Kevin's lore and yet hoped for Wild Magic?

They all had passion, but Prothall et all was fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury rules and Foul was fighting Bronx rules. ( kinder, gentler war?)

In the end - war is hell and is a contest of wills - not a boxing match with rules. When survival is at stake, killing is killing, death is death, mayhem is mayhem. Maybe the new Lords needed to learn this?

Just a thought...
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

Oh, no.

The New Lords refused to become descrators, to enact despite, even if that was the only way to win. The didn't become just as bad as Lord Foul just to beat Lord Foul.

That's sort of the moral of the story. That "win at all costs" is not the way to be. Even if it means losing.

It didn't make them weaker. It made them stronger. Because what they were defending wasn't being corrupted in the act of defending it. The Power that Preserves.

Defeating Foul (if they could have) by throwing away their principals would have been only a Pyrhic victory. What would have been left would have been as bad as being dead, in their eyes.
.
User avatar
SGuilfoyle1966
Giantfriend
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:28 am
Location: Fort Mill SC

Post by SGuilfoyle1966 »

It is a question, in the book and I think in real life, of do you want to be what you are, stand up for what you believe in and accept the consequences if you fail, or change, become what you hate.

If you are going to lose, would you rather not lose being yourself? If you somehow have a chance at victory, remote as it is?

Kevin had power, but he was weak.

Mhoram, until the last minute, had little power, but he was strong. Stronger.

In real life, the application is just as horrid. I have many a friend, close friend, who say that we ought to start cutting people's heads off to combat al-Qaida. When I was a kid, the nuns at school said we were the good guys and the "commies" were the bad guys.

They dind't go into specifics, but I learned that they would kidnap people, put blag bags over their heads, move them all over the world, torture them. They were bad, we were good. We didn't DO things like that.

I want to win this war, but I don't want to become the amoral equivalent of the Soviet Union to survive. I don't want anyone in our armed forces, or contractors working in our name, to have to cut off people's heads.

If we become less than what we are, we've already lost, no matter if we prevail.
Do, or do not. There is no try.
I think you like me because I'm a scoundrel.
Irishman and Gamecock fan
User avatar
SleeplessOne
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Was the Ritual of Desecration really so bad?

Post by SleeplessOne »

I'm new here so bear with me - I know many of you are really scolars concerning these wonderful books - so here's my question:

Was the Desecration really a totally bad thing? Consider:

Sure, many people may have died, the land was laid waste, and took years to come back, lore was forgotten, but considering the alternative, why do Mhoram and all the new lords condemn this and say things like - "death is better than desecration".

If Lord Foul would have systematcially, and totally defeated the council of old Lords and the Warward - ( which BTW Fouls seems to have almost had in the bag) Foul would have reigned in the land until the end of the Arch of Time.

So, as bad as it was, did Kevin not act with some wisdom, even if it wasn't conscience, in that the land survived to come back, the giants were warned and lived, the Bloodguard were spared, the Ramen and the great horses fled in time. That is better than a total victory by Foul isn't it? The people of the land lived to fight another day and are still fighting and defeating Foul several thousand years later, right?
Elena expresses a similar view as she and TC approach Melenkurion Skyweir in the Illearth War Sill :
"Thomas Covenant, there are some who believe that the Ritual of Desecration expressed High Lord Kevin's highest wisdom. They are few, but eloquent. The common understanding holds that Kevin strove to achieve that paradox of purity through destruction - and failed, for he and all the works of the Lords were undone, yet the Despiser endured.
But these few argue that the final despair or madness with which Kevin invoked the Ritual was a necessary sacrifice, a price to make possible ultimate vicotry. They argue that his preparations and then the Ritual - forcing both health and ill to begin their work anew - were encacted to provide us with Fangthane's defeat. In this argument, Kevin foresaw the need which would compel the Despiser to summon white gold to the Land"
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 24242
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

SRD had great, great stuff to say on this subject. Including my sig: We are not required to save the world. We are required to stand up as truly as we can for what we love.

Check it out here:
stephenrdonaldson.com/fromtheauthor/page.php?Page=4
The question is: Did Kevin really not have anything else to try other than the Ritual of Desecration?

It is not a matter of having failed the Land. It's a matter of having failed himself. Mhoram was in a similar position, but, instead of enacting another Ritual, he thought this: As long as something for which he could fight remained, he was impervious to terror. And something did remain; while he lived, at least one flame of love for the Land still burned. He could fight for that. Kevin could not see that, so, instead of using his power - and he obviously had some left, eh? - to continue fighting to his last breath, he used it in a foolish attempt to kill Foul, knowing what it would do to the Land.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

I think TROD was necessary for one reason: To give subsequent generations a chance to live in the Land, which is what Kevin in fact did.

The only reason I believe this is the fact that he did not desecrate the entire earth (or whatever planet the Land is on). So, the desecration was not really total, but left a distinct posibility for repatriation. The Haruchai and Ramen are good examples of that.

So, as Sill says:
If Lord Foul would have systematcially, and totally defeated the council of old Lords and the Warward Foul would have reigned in the land until the end of the Arch of Time.
And if that was indeed the alternative to TROD, I'm with Kevin all the way!

I see your point about actually killing other humans Wayfriend, but didn't he warn people to get the hell out of Dodge? Or was it only to the Ramen and Bloodguard that he extended that courtesy?
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Back on page 8 of this forum, this exact question was asked. I can't figure out how to link to another thread (my browser still says "kevinswatch.com" not matter which thread I'm on), so I'm pasting here what I said way back in 2005.
Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:40 pm
Kevin's Ritual is a combination of two possible responses to The Void [Edit: this is a term Donaldson himself used often back in that time; it's an existential term used to describe the emptiness of existence, the meaninglessness of reality, life in a godless world, confrontation with our own finitude and mortality, which leads us to the first question of philosophy: "why not suicide?"].

On the one hand Kevin's response was despair, giving up, destroying that which he loved in order to destroy that which he hated--a form of suicide. But it was also a form of fighting, believing that he could eradicate Despite with a violent enough attack. Both of these are destructive and futile responses.

I think there are 4 possible responses to the Void, each of which are either a form of acceptance or denial.

Two kinds of acceptance: 1) giving in, and 2) suicide. Suicide at least acknowledges the reality of the Unattractive Truth, as I call it, the reality that one cannot defeat or eradicate it, and instead seeks to eliminate oneself. Giving in, on the other hand, is like Foamfollower's laughter--laughter IN SPITE of the Void. It is not a denial of it, but instead a refusal to let the Void beat down one's "spirit," or "heart."

Two kinds of denial: 1) fighting and 2) denial (for lack of a better word). Fighting is what Hile Troy did, trying to beat Despite with pure physical might. This is a form of denial because Despite cannot be defeated, the Void is an existential feature of reality that's not going away. What I mean by 2) is like the Oath of Peace, thinking that you can just ignore things such as your own inner Despite, your own inner Void--that you can supress these "ugly" parts of yourself.

All four of these responses are paradoxical and absurd. It is absurd to use your freedom to end your freedom (suicide). It is absurd to acknowledge the Void and yet retain hope and laughter. It is absurd to fight something that can't be beaten. And it is absurd to try to suppress and ignore real parts of the world.

However, I think in the end, the most noble response is an unflenching acknowledgment of the Void, the absurd choice to laugh in the face of it; to give in to its reality, but to refuse to let this reality turn you into what you hate. You may not be able to eradicate Despite, but you can choose how you react to it. [Edit: reality may be meaningless, but you can exercise your freewill and choose to infuse reality with your own meaning.] In the end, it is all of us helping each other, sacrificing ourselves for each other, that translates the absurdity of our existence into something bearable . . . possibly something even more. Possibly even transcends the absurdity?

So yeah, Kevin was wrong.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

This question reminds me of this story. It's not perfectly analogous, but it's similar.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325458,00.html
Expectant mother Lorraine Allard learned the devastating news that she was in the advanced stages of liver cancer when she was four months pregnant, according to the Daily Mail.

Allard, of St. Olaves in the U.K., had a choice: Delay treatment to save her baby, or terminate the pregnancy to save herself.

She chose the former, waiting until the fetus was viable before scheduling a Caesarean section.

"If I am going to die, my baby is going to live," Allard told her husband, Martyn, according to the Mail.
Is the RoD perfectly analogous to chemotherapy? No. But like I said, it's similar. Killing the innocent in order to stop a cancer . . . when you're going to die anyway. Why not choose the noble thing and pass away with dignity, sacrificing yourself for the innocent, rather than killing the innocent in order to postpone the inevitable?
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
[Syl]
Unfettered One
Posts: 13021
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by [Syl] »

Topics merged. Thanks, Malik.
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
User avatar
Sill
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:31 pm

Post by Sill »

Malik23 wrote:This question reminds me of this story. It's not perfectly analogous, but it's similar.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325458,00.html
Expectant mother Lorraine Allard learned the devastating news that she was in the advanced stages of liver cancer when she was four months pregnant, according to the Daily Mail.

Allard, of St. Olaves in the U.K., had a choice: Delay treatment to save her baby, or terminate the pregnancy to save herself.

She chose the former, waiting until the fetus was viable before scheduling a Caesarean section.

"If I am going to die, my baby is going to live," Allard told her husband, Martyn, according to the Mail.
Is the RoD perfectly analogous to chemotherapy? No. But like I said, it's similar. Killing the innocent in order to stop a cancer . . . when you're going to die anyway. Why not choose the noble thing and pass away with dignity, sacrificing yourself for the innocent, rather than killing the innocent in order to postpone the inevitable?
You see, thats the point exactly - yet Kevin -all though in deep despair, DID what this pregant mother did - HE took the ugly, painful, heart-breaking road on himself and did that which was most abhorrant to him and SAVE the sunsequent generations.

Sure, they had generations of healing and learning to do - but at least they were free and alive and had the Raynyan, Ramen, Bloodguard, the people of the land, and the Giants alive and free and healthy to help them. That is, giving your analogy, the baby lived and the mother died.

The eariler post that said that Foul would have probably backed off and found another way, with all due respect, is off the mark a little - evil will not rest, Foul and the Ravers would have harrassed, pursued, and enslaved the people, Haruchai et al forever had Kevin and the Old Lords just fell in battle and left them defensless.

Sure, I understand we lose our soul if we become what we hate and strive against, but think of Kevin as on a suicide mission - only not killing children and innocents, but the evil tyrant.

I see him as the Captain going down with the ship and sending his men on the life rafts.
User avatar
1369usmc
Servant of the Land
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Michigan

WAS Kevin so wrong to enact the Ritual?

Post by 1369usmc »

Hello to all. This is my first posting. I read the first and second trilogy way back when/as they were released in paperback and have recently reread them. I'm on the last chapters of The White Gold Wielder right now. I read a little every night. It amazes me how much more I understand Covenent this time around. I retired from the U.S. Marine Corps in 1996, after 25 years service. I mention all this only to give a little background for my comments. I know some will characterize me as a ignorant War monger, and there's some truth to that statement. The first time I read the series I was often very frustrated at TC's inaction and what I considered cowardice (at the time). Live and learn. :) At any rate.... what I wish to say is that there are some people that are willing to do what they deem necessary to get the job done, regardless of world opinion or the personal cost. They do it willingly, knowing that they will likely pay a consequence for their actions. They do it so that their fellow countryman won't have to be forced into a similar situation, i.e., jumping on a hand grenade to save others. I equate Kevin's decision to waste the land to that type of sacrifice. The desecration was abhorrent to him, but under the situation, he felt that it was justified. Kevin judged that it would eventually be for the greater good. A delaying tactic, if you will. The end result of the story would seem to support this. I love Donaldson's writings and am in awe of his talents as a writer and story teller. I have read many of his works and hope to continue to do so for many years. I hope you will also. Semper Fi, and please support our troops. Bill
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

Welcome to the watch Bill! Off to The Summonsing to present yourself to the watchers.

We have a few other servicemen around. All articulate, litterate (of course) and reasonable people. but I don't seem to recall anyone ever calling them ignorant warmongers. Your president however.....

Not even the leftiest pacifist scum on the watch, that I proudly call myself among, would say such a thing to a fellow watcher.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
matrixman
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 8361
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 11:24 am

Post by matrixman »

Fist and Faith wrote: It is not a matter of having failed the Land. It's a matter of having failed himself. Mhoram was in a similar position, but, instead of enacting another Ritual, he thought this: As long as something for which he could fight remained, he was impervious to terror. And something did remain; while he lived, at least one flame of love for the Land still burned. He could fight for that. Kevin could not see that, so, instead of using his power - and he obviously had some left, eh? - to continue fighting to his last breath, he used it in a foolish attempt to kill Foul, knowing what it would do to the Land.
I agree.

I also agree with what SRD said at Elohimfest, that in his view Kevin was a megalomaniac with a God complex. If Kevin couldn't save the Land himself, then he was going to make sure that no one else could.

I think the more kindly assessment of Kevin relies on the view that he was still sane and rational at the end. But wasn't that Elena's problem?

I thought the main lesson about Kevin was that he had fallen into complete despair at the end - so one could not rely on him for sane decision-making. I'm not sure I could trust the wisdom of a man who (I assumed) had gone totally bonkers.

He thought he could destroy Foul - I thought that was the whole reason why he enacted the Ritual. If the Land got destroyed in the process, so be it. I guess one could look back in hindsight and say that Kevin deliberately withheld from fully destroying the Land since the place is obviously still around, but I'm not convinced that he was thinking that way at the end. I think he was just trying his damnedest to kill Foul, but simply died from his exertions, and thank goodness he did, because otherwise he truly might have wiped out the Land - while Foul still laughed.
User avatar
1369usmc
Servant of the Land
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Michigan

Post by 1369usmc »

It's quite evident to me that I will have to push myself to the intellectual limit in this outfit, just to keep my nose above water! I'm sure I will enjoy it, and perhaps might even contribute an original idea on occasion. Well.... I might..... it could happen!! :) Semper Fi. Bill
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” - Edmund Burke
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

MM wrote:I guess one could look back in hindsight and say that Kevin deliberately withheld from fully destroying the Land since the place is obviously still around, but I'm not convinced that he was thinking that way at the end. I think he was just trying his damnedest to kill Foul, but simply died from his exertions, and thank goodness he did, because otherwise he truly might have wiped out the Land - while Foul still laughed.
I don't thin he exercised any restraint. He destroyed it as completely as he could. The place was, however, re-terraformed so to speak, and then re-patriated from adjacent populations. A posibility that was quite possibly clear to K before he "lit the match". But maybe that's the biologist in me speaking, a bit like the nerdy engineer trekkie complaining about credibility problems with the Enterprise' hyperdrive ;)

Or maybe I'm a just a simpleton, but I think - as Sill - that it all boils down to whether the ROD was the ONLY way Kevin could prevent Foul from getting total power. If indeed that is the case, I have a hard time seing how anyone, for whom love of the Land is their first priority, could be against the ROD for any reason. I submit that the only reason you are so cooked up over "remaining true to himself" is because you agree (as do I) that Kevin had the right ideas, and was a good guy; up until the ROD that is. If he had been a despotic torturing mad-man, being true to himself had NOT been a good thing for the land objectively speaking.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

You cannot judge the Ritual in hindsight. Because Kevin could not choose it in hindsight.

Sure, you can now say that Foul was reduced for a time, which was necessary for a chain of events which leads to a final victory over him.

The trouble is, Kevin did not know that. So he certainly could not have planned for it.

Which means you can't give him any credit for it.

Kevin thought that Foul could be destroyed. He should have known better. It was despair that made him forget this, and to think that it could be done.

Kevin had no idea that the Land would be inhabitable again after a thousand years or so. He didn't know if it would be ten thousand years, or ever. He didn't know that Revelstone would remain in tact.

Yes, he gave the Wards to the Giants. But I don't think he ever planned that they would be used by the people of the Land in the Land. He probably assumed that they would be used wherever the remnants of whoever survived chose to dwell. That's why he gave them to the Giants - because they would FIND them. Otherwise, he'd have left the first ward in Revelstone.

As far as Kevin was concerned, he thought he was killing the Land forever. And killing Foul.

It was an attempted murder-suicide. And the murder failed.
.
User avatar
Prebe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 7926
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: People's Republic of Denmark

Post by Prebe »

Well, if you don't want to ascribe any foreknowledge of the posibility of repatriation to old Kev, I am inclined to agree that the ROD was a bad idea. However, he DID make all sorts of preparations as you mention, which makes it likely in my opinion, that he saw - perhaps even knew - possibilities in the aftermath.

Also, of course his evaluation that everything WOULD be lost if the ROD was not enacted, might just have been the only sound conclusion to draw from the circumstances. Of course neither you nor I could have any idea if there was a sprinkle of hope that he overlooked.
"I would have gone to the thesaurus for a more erudite word."
-Hashi Lebwohl
Post Reply

Return to “The First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant”