Linden and the Land's Reality

[Zarathustra]

It is beyond ridiculous to propose that because FTL travel is possible in theory, therefore [WayFriends] argument doesn't hold water. That is just avoiding the issue.

Just by looking at the length of my posts here, I don't think you can reasonably say I'm avoiding this issue. Clearly, I'm confronting it in a critical, thoughtful manner. I disagree that it is "beyond ridiculous" to taken a person's examples and show their problems, and then relate these problems to their overall point. That's just how debating works. Wayfriend is free to make his point with better examples. I treated his post fairly.

Just because you say that this problem is a binary solution set of exactly two possibilities: either explain how A is possible or therefore B is the answer doesn't mean anything...

I never said any such thing. Actually, just after the bit you quoted, I said:
However, there IS an alternative between "it's all a dream" and "it's literally real." I think TC's creation is much more complex than that.

So not only have I taken into account the "excluded middle," it's my position! But my original claim holds true: you haven't accounted for the Land's reality; you haven't explained how it can be literally real. And, in fact, I have gone on to say that the attempt at an explanation misses the point, inappropriately applying a science fiction rationale to a work of fantasy.

suspension of disbelief is central to this issue; you cannot apply sound laws of physics to a fantasy novel because , after all, it is a fantasy novel.

I agree. However, suspending disbelief is NOT the same thing as actively asserting the Land's reality. In fact, such an assertion comes down on one side of a "binary problem," to borrow your phrase, which is contrary to the "middle" position TC himself eventually comes to in the 2nd Chronicles. As I've said before:

The fact that TC later comes to a "stalemate" with regards to this issue DOESN'T mean that he accepts the reality of the Land as literally real. It means he has left that question behind for more personally meaningful issues. However, it seems that many readers have taken this move as the author's blessing to interpret the Land as literally real even from the characters' perspectives, which is clearly not the case, and in fact misses the point.

And, there is also supported evidence that a person can be in two places in principal, it has been done with atoms, demonstrating a well known (if little understood) property of Quantum Mechanics that says matter simultaneously exists in all states until directly observed (or something like that); Scientists have in fact been able to tease apart an atom's two distinct states, in two different (although close by) locations. Google it if you havent read about this.

Oh, I've read quite a bit about quantum mechanics. However, that misses the point. As i said above: if one tries to justify it in any technological manner or by means of a physical mechanism, then we're dealing with science fiction, not fantasy.

This turn in your argument is confusing, since it seems you agree that we can't apply science fiction rationalizations to fantasy.

[iQuestor]

OK Malik, let me 'splain:

1. Beyond ridiculous was too strong.
2. Length of post doesn't mean anything about its composition. It doesnt mean anything, except you used a lot of words; I will Agree, most of your posts are well thought out and clearly defined.

I said:

Just because you say that this problem is a binary solution set of exactly two possibilities: either explain how A is possible or therefore B is the answer doesn't mean anything...

you said:

I never said any such thing. Actually, just after the bit you quoted,

I said:
However, there IS an alternative between "it's all a dream" and "it's literally real." I think TC's creation is much more complex than that.

and went on to say:

I view the Land as a myth-world filled with universal archetypes. It is not literally real, but in a sense, it is MORE real than our world: it's metaphorical power touches upon truths that transcend individuals.

Well, this doesn't seem to say anything concrete. I know you quoted what SRD's views and quotes were from the GI, but those statements never supported your position concretely. You can construe them to, but taken in context, all that you quoted SRD as saying doesn't support your point one way or another, in my opinion.

SRD Said:

. . . the Land clearly exists in a different kind or order of reality than Covenant's "real world". In the Platonic sense, the Land is *more* real than Covenant's "real world."

well, that sounds to me like it does clearly exist, therefore it is real in the context of the story. It doesn't even have to exist on the same plane or reality, but this still in my mind doesn't in any way exclude it's realness. Reality is by definition, real.

SRD Also said:

I'm dealing with a "reality" which is inextricably bound to the mind(s) of my protagonist(s)...

He is dealing with a reality .... Again, Reality means in some sense real, not spiritual, ethical, astral , archetypal or whatever. Conversely, it supports my earlier assertion that Covenant possibly caused the creation of the land, as WarMark and others have also said. Just because it is bound to the mind of the protagonists doesn't mean it is not in some sense somewhere real.

SRD went on:

Put simply, fantasy is a form of fiction in which the internal crises or conflicts or processes of the characters are dramatized as if they were external individuals or events. Crudely stated, this means that in fantasy the characters meet themselves - or parts of themselves, their own needs/problems/exigencies - as actors on the stage of the story, and so the internal struggle to deal with those needs/problems/exigencies is played out as an external struggle in the action of the story. A somewhat oversimplified way to make the same point is by comparing fantasy to realistic, mainstream fiction. In realistic fiction, the characters are expressions of their world, whereas in fantasy the world is an expressions of the characters. Even if you argue that realistic fiction is about the characters, and that the world they live in is just one tool to express them, it remains true that the details which make up their world come from a recognized body of reality – tables, chairs, jobs, stresses which we all acknowledge as being external and real, forceful on their own terms. In fantasy, however, the ultimate justification for all the external details arises from the characters themselves. The characters confer reality on their surroundings.

somehow, you took from this:

I don't understand how we can ignore SRD's own words on this issue. Clearly, the Land is NOT literally real.

this still doesn't support whether Land is or is not real. In my opinion, SRD is just saying that in the context of the story, the externalizations of the character and their issues are real. The key phrase here is, in the context of the story. From this point of view, I do not see how anyone could posit that the Land in TC is not in fact a real place in some context, though not necessarily on the same order, plane of reality, Fileing cabinet or Studio Lot, for that matter.

As far as a world filled with Archetypes, I don't think so; even SRD admits Foul is the only true archetype in the Land. The other exception is the evil creatures, Ur Viles, etc that don't have another side, Runes notwithstanding. Everyone else, from Lords to Bloodguard to Stonedowners are a mixture of types and well rounded, as no true Archetype is.

you said:

Oh, I've read quite a bit about quantum mechanics. However, that misses the point. As i said above: if one tries to justify it in any technological manner or by means of a physical mechanism, then we're dealing with science fiction, not fantasy.

This turn in your argument is confusing, since it seems you agree that we can't apply science fiction rationalizations to fantasy.

My point was that there are other solutions to real versus not real that your middle road argument, which doesn't solve anything. I agree it was confusing in my reasoning; I did mean to add an aside to this paragraph to say it still didnt matter, but alas I did not.


My last point. There was a creator, he did create. He also approached Linden. What good is a creator if there was nothing created. Was the beggar then also imagined?

edit to clarify:

In closing, my point is that, within the context of the Chronicles, the Land clearly exists on some plausible and palpable plane of reality outside of Covenant and Lindens minds, even though it is bound inextricably to them and perhaps created by them .

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend,

How is it that we should accept that Beren, who died, was recalled from the Halls of Mandos to dwell once again in Beleriand?

There is not a problem accepting Middle Earth within the context of the story because all of its characters exist within the same reality. There is never an issue, even within the story, of the reality of the world. Even Tolkien's playful idea that it represents an "alternate" history of our own world is meant purely in mythical terms, not literal.

However, SRD intentionally used a character from "our world" (for several reasons). He intentionally made the reality of the Land an issue. And when the character himself moves past this issue, he DOES NOT definitely come down on the literal side, but instead transcends the real/not real paradox, realizing that the question itself doesn't matter as much as his own responses to the Land. However, this is completely different from TC accepting the Land as literally real. If you can find some quote from any of the books where TC comes down on one side or the other, I'd love to see it.

Yes, it is metaphorical and spiritual --- to the reader. Within the framework of the story, it is quite real --- to Covenant, the protagonist. Covenant himself may ponder the spiritual and metaphorical
significance of his translation, and may even wonder if it is a dream. But it DID happen to him.

Yes, it DID happen to him. But begs the question: exactly what happened to him? SRD said:

In "real" terms, of course, the only thing that really happens to Thomas Covenant - at least in the first three books - is that he gets knocked out a few times and wakes up willing to go on living.

Are we to understand this statement as from the perspective of the reader? If so, then why the scare quotes around "real?" If SRD has such little confidence in the reality of our own existence that he must use scare quotes when talking about it, then certainly he can't place much weight in the Land's reality! I thought "real" was meant to imply the perspective of TC, the character, who inhabits the "real" world--scare quotes were needed because, of course, his "real" world is a fictional representation of ours.

I do admit, however, that punction is usually insufficient to settle issues this complex.

[iQuestor]

In "real" terms, of course, the only thing that really happens to Thomas Covenant - at least in the first three books - is that he gets knocked out a few times and wakes up willing to go on living.

WHat I take from this is that "Real" means in TC's normal plane of existence; in other words, what an observer would observe about TC during the period in question.

[wayfriend]

Okay, Explorer keeps on eating my responses, and this is the third time I am typing this in. If I sound pissed off ...

Wayfriend,

How is it that we should accept that Beren, who died, was recalled from the Halls of Mandos to dwell once again in Beleriand?

There is not a problem accepting Middle Earth within the context of the story because all of its characters exist within the same reality.

Well, I could argue about the evidence that Aman and Middle Earth are different planes of existence ... which would be missing the point, as once again, you've fastened the wrong thing, and missed the general idea.

Travel between different realities is a staple of fantasy literature. If you're arguing that the Land cannot be "real" (in the framework of the story)because it involves travelling between realities, then I would have to say you're argument remains specious.

But I don't think you mean to argue that, you're just trying to work your way out of a corner.

However, SRD intentionally used a character from "our world" (for several reasons).

And here, I think, is where you go wrong.

Covenant's world, the "Haven Farm World" if you will, is not our world. There is no one named Thomas Covenant in our world. There is no Haven Farm. Calling the Haven Farm World "our world" or "the real world" is entirely incorrect. The only way it is valid is if it is assumed to be a shorthand way of saying "the more real world" or "the world more like our world" - relative to the Land.

SRD very carefully makes the Haven Farm World very similar to our world. So we can identify with the characters in certain important ways.

But The Haven Farm World is fictitious.

But what does that have to with "our" world? Covenant's "real" world is just as fictional as the Land.

(06/05/2006)

And, being a world of fiction in a fantasy story, it is a world of fantasy. This cannot be denied. Eyes appear in large fires. People are possessed. And avatars of Creators walk the earth testing people for heroic quests.

Part of the problem is that we often, and SRD often, speaks of the Haven Farm World as the "real world" and "our world". So the issue can be greatly muddled, and you can quote a lot of things out of context which, when you do so, seem to point in other directions.

And the author's intention is to make the line blurred. The author wants you to think of the Haven Farm World as your world. He wants you to think that the same knowledge, the same assumptions, the same expectations apply. But then, quite intentionally, that trust is shattered - something happens that defies that knowledge, assumptions, and expectations. And we can emote with a character who has to deal with that. But this only happens in the Haven Farm World, it doesn't happen, it cannot happen, in ours.

So you have no grounds anywhere to say that Coventant's travel to the Land cannot be "real". It doesn't need to be real in the real world, because it's a fantasy story, and we can believe it real within that framework. And it doesn't need to be "possible" within that framework, because it is a fantasy world, and fantastical things can happen.

If the Haven Farm World is a "fictional representation of ours", then, we have to allow that it is fiction, and that it is fantasy, and that therefore it diverges from hours in significant and fantastical ways, however similar it may be. Up to and including travelling to the Land.

Yes, it DID happen to him. But begs the question: exactly what happened to him? SRD said:

In "real" terms, of course, the only thing that really happens to Thomas Covenant - at least in the first three books - is that he gets knocked out a few times and wakes up willing to go on living.

Ah, we need to be careful. What does SRD mean by "In 'real' terms"? Real for us, or real for Haven Farm World? And is he saying nothing else happens, or just that nothing else happens in that real world?

Remember, he seeks always to mislead you. He (SRD) says so.

[I'm Murrin]

Wayfriend, if you hit the 'submit' button and it gives you and internal server error, hit refresh and click 'ok' when it asks you to resend the information. It'll submit the post again.

[Avatar]

Interesting thread guys. WayFriend, IIRC, you rebutted my own raising of the exact point of the paradox of two physical bodies quite well once upon a time, although I don't remember where. Might have been in the Runes forum.

I'm one of those people who do think the land was real. even literally real, as opposed to metaphorically or metaphysically.

But I do see the two bodies thing as a large stumbling block, suspension of disbelief notwithstanding.

--A

[iQuestor]

AVATAR - the two bodies thing can also be explained in other ways....

I said earlier:

What if the TC in the Land were just an Avatar? SRD hasnt specifically said it was exactly the same body atom for atom. I am not suggesting these are the explanations, I am just pointing out that there are many other possibilites to satisfy that the Land might be a real place in the books.

And, there is also supported evidence that a person can be in two places in principal, it has been done with atoms, demonstrating a well known (if little understood) property of Quantum Mechanics that says matter simultaneously exists in all states until directly observed (or something like that); Scientists have in fact been able to tease apart an atom's two distinct states, in two different (although close by) locations. Google it if you havent read about this. It follows that a person (ie all of the atoms in a person simultaneously) might be teased into two person-states, which is as principally sound as beaming someone up from a a planet or FTL Travel or the existance of something like Jar Jar Binks.

[wayfriend]

BTW, Didn't Burrough's John Carter (of Mars) do essentially the same thing in the first Barsoom Story? I don't think SRD invented this form of interdimensional travel.

Yes, I like the avatar explanation. "Projection" may be a better word for it IMO. Covenant's spirit is projected into the larger, more Platonically real matrix of the Land.

[iQuestor]

Yes, but what if Covenant is Foul's externalization of internal struggles ...

[Zarathustra]

"Projection" may be a better word for it IMO. Covenant's spirit is projected into the larger, more Platonically real matrix of the Land.

Damn, that's exactly what I'm saying! Except, I think I'm using "platonically real " in a sense closer to the actual Platonic theory of Forms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forms The Donaldson quote I've given about the Land being more real than TC's world follows this interpretation, too.

The avatar idea doesn't sit well with me. Can you shave an avatar's beard? Do avatars bleed? Get tired? Get healed? Rape girls? If it makes sense for an avatar to undergo these activities, then what is the difference between an avatar and a body?

If a distinction remains at all between an avatar and a body, the avatar's participation in these activities is on some level illusory, or at least nonphysical. And if we're not talking about actual, physical participation in the Land, then what's the difference between this idea and what I'm talking about? Does it make sense for the Land to be physically real, but TC's participation in it is nonphysical? Wouldn't that mean that he's already been a "revenant" in the Land all along?

But all this is speculation. Let's return to the book itself. Since no one addressed this point, let me repeat: when TC moves past this issue, he DOES NOT definitively come down on the literal side, but instead transcends the real/not real paradox, realizing that the question itself doesn't matter as much as his own responses to the Land. However, this is completely different from TC accepting the Land as literally real. If you can find some quote from any of the books where TC comes down on one side or the other, I'd love to see it.

No more s.f. examples, or examples from other works of fantasy. Let's see some Donaldsonian evidence. If you can't back it up from the book, nor the GI, then you're really just talking about your own personal theories, right? Everything I've said can be backed up by Donaldson's own words. Just look at TWL, p66:

"First Lord Foul is a figment--then he's real." In spite of her control, her voice trembled slightly. "Which is it? You can't have it both ways." Her fist clenched. "You could be dying."

Ah, I have to have it both ways, Covenant murmured. It's like vertigo. The answer is in the contradiction--in the eye of the paradox.

Like I've said, even from TC's perspective, he doesn't come down on one side or the other. So why do readers?

[wayfriend]

Like I've said, even from TC's perspective, he doesn't come down on one side or the other. So why do readers?

Well, because someone asked!

But it would be a mistake to assume that just because TC thought it might be a dream, that it might have been a dream. Indeed, it would be fairer to say that he wished it was a dream, which opens wider the possibilty that his interpretation of his reality diverges from his reality.

As I reader, I don't think it was a dream. Nevertheless, I allow that TC thinks it is. Those two things don't exclude each other. And, as others have pointed out, "it was all a dream" rather sucks the juice out of the whole story.

Let me ask, do you think the author really wants us to be balanced between thinking it real and thinking it a dream? Or does the author really want us to believe that Thomas Covenant is rational and reasonable when he is balanced between thinking it real and thinking it a dream? My guess is that the second one is of far more concern than the first.

[iQuestor]

1. Avatars can do anything, like shave, eat, and rape. I don't see the issue here.

2. Distinction between an avatar and the original is like the Mind/Body question posed by many; however You are what you perceive (and think), and if consciousness were transferred to another body temporarily, and then back, the person's self-view would reflect experiences in both bodies. I think during the time TC was in the Land, his "real" body's mentality was empty; the normal stem level functions were there to keep him alive, but his spirit was either translated into an identical host or transmogrified into an identical physical manifestation in the Land's plane of existence.

3. SRD Talks enough about realities, and that he is dealing with realities that are bound to the minds of TC and Linden. Realities = real in my book. Real in the context of the story.

IMO Occam's razor cuts the argument that the Land is not real in the context of the story to shreds; The Land being Real is the simpler solution, and accounts for multiple people from the same reality experiencing the other reality of the Land together.

Another way to pose the question is: How is it possible that TC and Linden have the exact same memories of the exact same place if they were not transported to some reality in some way physically?

I think we can agree that to satisfy this, there must be some place in common where TC and Linden can have multual experiences. Unless there is a double-possesion taking place, where they are in each others mind experiencing a synchronized dream or shared memories, I dont see how this common place is in either one's mind; the much simpler solution is that they are moved to a place that physically exists somewhere in the context of the story's universe.

With the Land-is-Real argument, only the translation of TC and Linden and Hile has to be solved. This type of translation is a staple of Fantady as WF has pointed out...

With the Land-is-not-real argument, you have a lot more issues to deal with that grow exponentially with each person who experiences the Land. The only easy way out is that it is all a dream by one person, and SRD has already alluded this is not the case.

There is also the problem with History of the Land. If the Land were the product of a Dream that was being shared, it would seem to be that at least one of the dream-participants would have to be all knowing about the Land or at least be imagining (dreaming) on the fly. But TC knows a lot of history of the Land than Linden does, and Linden has knowledge that TC doesnt. Then thre is Hile - he had things going on before TC showed up the second time. This gets really complex if it is a shared dream or similar Metaphysical event.

Plato's Forms suggest we are a shadow world of the true one; Well, in his forms, the true world is also real, and not imagined, so I don't see how any of this supports the position that the Land is metaphysical in nature.

[Buckarama]

Well Hile Troy was never confirmed in the "real" world was he? Did Linden look for a man named Hile Troy when she got back?
This is a great thread!

[iQuestor]

No, Linden didn't have the need to define the Land like Covenant did, so she never pursued it.

I believe SRD's intention was that Hile Troy just added fuel to the controversy within TC that the Land was/was not Real. But the act of his summoning to the Land by Atarian might support the fact that he was from TC's world, but we dont know much about the ritual she used, and how Troy was the target. That will probably never be explained, but I would love to know more about it. Good idea for FanFic....

If you think about it, he (SRD) did a great job in blurring this line.
> We have three participants, but only two know each other.
> Time moves faster in the Land, just like it does in a dream.
> Their bodies can be healed in the Land, but will always end up with the same wounds and condition they were in before they were translated.

As WF suggested, it was SRD's intention that this line always be blurred. TC was going to prove it by not shaving, since he did not have a beard when he was translated. But he gave this up when his recall was coming up, and went ahead and shaved....

I think the best indication that the Land is real is that Linden and TC experienced it together. If Linden had shown up in the first chrons, I think that the real/not real issue would have been more weighted to the Real side of the argument, and TC wouldnt have had to make his little agreement.

[wayfriend]

I think the best indication that the Land is real is that Linden and TC experienced it together.

If you admit that Haven's Farm World is a fantasy world, as do I, then you have to allow that fantasical things can happen. Such as travelling by some sort of projection to The Land.

But this cuts both ways. In a fantasy, it is "possible" that they really are sharing the same dream. Another staple of fantasy is that the dream world can be more than random images, that it can be significant, that someone's fate can hinge on what happens in their dream, and that "others" can be present in your dream (good guys and bad guys).

So nothing about TC and Linden sharing an experience proves the Land is real. It may only prove that in this fantasy setting, dreams behave differently than they do in the real "real" world.

[iQuestor]

I think the best indication that the Land is real is that Linden and TC experienced it together.

As I said, it is an indication, not a proof. Nothing has proven it, as was SRD's intention.

I agree that TC's world is a fantasy world, and that dreams might be different, but again, Occam's Razor: The simpler explanation is probably the right one; there are far less problems with a physical location of the Land than a dream one.

[Avatar]

Interesting points. And yes, avatars are physical incarnations. So they do have to shave, eat etc. Trust me on this one.

And of course, in the chrons themselves, at one point SRD describes Covenant as an avatar of white flame. Sure, the context doesn't quite fit, but the idea is there...

Very interesting point. I must try and find that other thread.

--A

[Zarathustra]

it would be a mistake to assume that just because TC thought it might be a dream, that it might have been a dream.

True, because he has made mistakes before, and subsequently revised his position. However, we are talking reality from the characters' perspective. If we are not going to consider their actual perspective, but rather the one we think they should have, then we're talking about the reader's perspective, not the characters'!

As I reader, I don't think it was a dream.

Neither do I. I've never supported the dream idea.

do you think the author really wants us to be balanced between thinking it real and thinking it a dream? Or does the author really want us to believe that Thomas Covenant is rational and reasonable when he is balanced between thinking it real and thinking it a dream?

These are good questions finally taking us into areas we haven't touched upon in this circular discussion where the same issues keep getting repeated. I think paradox is of high importance to SRD, for he gives us many examples as problems for the characters to overcome. He doesn't view paradox as something that can be collapsed by chosing one side over another. This is illustrated many times, vertigo being one example. There is also TC's coming to grips with reality/dream issue, as well as the fusing of venom and white gold in the banefire. Also, there is the passion and control issue--the balance achieved by Mhoram's victory.

So yes, I do believe the author's final position on paradox is one of balance, of transcending the paradox by accepting both halves as partially valid up to a point. Does the author want us to think TC is rational when doing this? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean TC is wrong. Perhaps the author is saying that rational, two-value logic systems can't cope with paradox, so they are ineffective (witness the Oath of Peace). Absolutism on either side is a mistake.

Coming to grips with paradox requires a reinterpretation of the problem so that the two sides are not at odds with one another--or at least they form a complementory tension. One such interpretation is my own, wherein the Land is not a dream, neither is is literally real, but rather (all together now ) a metaphorical myth world populated by archetypes that transcend individual experience such that multiple people from the "real" world can participate and have shared experiences of this "Platonically heightened" reality. Does this mean it's unreal? Certainly not. Does it mean that it is real like our world is real? Certainly not.

The fact that you're still talking about dreams, and Iquestor still talks about SRD dealing in "realities," makes it seem like you are all interpreting my view as some form of unreality or nonbeing. Iquestor said:

He is dealing with a reality .... Again, Reality means in some sense real, not spiritual, ethical, astral , archetypal or whatever.

You see, we all have different personal meanings for "real." Iquestor's definition excludes spiritual, archetypal, etc., such that "real" must ONLY mean literally, physically, real like things in our world. If that is the case, then why did SRD say:

. . . the Land clearly exists in a different kind or order of reality than Covenant's "real world". In the Platonic sense, the Land is *more* real than Covenant's "real world."

It's OKAY for the Land to have a different kind or order of reality than TC's world. In fact, SRD endorses this view. It doesn't take away from the Land's reality to say it has a different kind of existence.

And yes, avatars are physical incarnations.

There are certainly nonphysical meanings of the word "avatar." But if you're going to insist upon a physical one, well then, an avatar is just a second body, and it doesn't help with the two-body problem.

[iQuestor]

Quote:
And yes, avatars are physical incarnations.
There are certainly nonphysical meanings of the word "avatar." But if you're going to insist upon a physical one, well then, an avatar is just a second body, and it doesn't help with the two-body problem.

Ummm yes it does; You are not your body, but your perceptions, memory and consciousness collectively. Your body only allows you to move and perceive.

If you take that mental collection and put it in another physical body, then you have effectively moved the core person. The body is just so much meat, much Like a computer is so much hardware without an operating system. The person can go on within a body that is completely paralyzed (except the involuntary functions that keep the brain from dying) but a body is just meat without the person inside. If the creator can create a whole world, then surely a meat-puppet identical to TC's original body in which to place his core mentality. This is a heck of a lot smaller problem that the Land not having a corporeal presence somewhere.

And How can you possibly argue that 'real' doesn't have to have some corporeal place in which to exist? It either exists, or it doesnt! If it is not a dream, and it is not real, what else is there? SRD's comments about paradox doesnt exclude either side, and I think we agree it isnt both. If it was, we'd both be right, with no argument.

Why don't you address the other problems with the land-is-not-real, rather than picking through sparse comments of mine?
>What about the creator, who was in TC's world, experienced by TC and Linden? She saw the old man before TC even told her about him, described him exactly.
> what about the common experiences of Linden and Covenant, and also the separate ones that they have that are in the Land? Those independant experiences must have a place to be.
> What about the Lands history, that has gone on independant of TC and Linden, both before they came and during their separation?
> what about Hile Troy?
>What about the physical manifestations of Foul in the fire? The community of retribution was contacted by Foul through the fire, and other means? If he did not exist, then how did they know to do the ritual, see him in the fire? He can obviously affect the world with lightning and fire, therefore it also has to be real in some way to affect TC's world.
> What about Roger; he obviously has contact, and also Joan?

I do not see how you can support a not real, not a dream position. You seem to address only the two body problem, and then quote SRD on things that do not distinctly support your position, at least are way open to interpretation. Why don't you state specifically exactly what you believe the Land is, so I can figure out what your stance is... I am sure you have done so before, but I guess I am just dense. The explanation you gave before about archetypes and plato doesnt really say anything concrete that I can see.

My position is that the Land has some corporeal existance in space and time (although on another plane of reality) than TC's real world, in the context of the story. I am not saying it could be reached by conventional space travel. TC and Linden's core beings (and Hile) were transported in some physical way to the Land either by summoning or direct manipulation by Creator or Foul. This transition could be through space/time, or interdimensional, or both, but their core beings definately left their bodies or projected to the new location. The Land does not exist in anyone's mind or some shared delusion. If it follows Plato's Forms, so be it, however the real world in the platonic sense still exists corporeally; indeed you could aergue from his point that we dont truly exist except as shadows.

I acknowledge that SRD has given no direct evidenct for either side, however using the evidence given, and his GI quotes, and applying Occam's razor, the Land is clearly real as described above.