Maybe the shackles alone can't bind Foul. But if TC can use the Whilte Gold with the shackles it might be possible. In the second Chrons we saw TC accept his death and cede the ring. If he accepts that he IS Foul, at least in some sense, then maybe he will use the wild magic to bind himself to Foul using the shackles.
Maybe crazy.
Shackles
Moderators: dlbpharmd, Seareach
It's possible. Could Vain and Findail have combined without the power of the ring? I'm sure the urviles assumed the wild magic would be available to be used, but it makes me wonder what would've happened if it hadn't been present, or if Linden hadn't used it...
"History is a myth men have agreed upon." - Napoleon
-
AjK
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:39 pm
- Location: Standing in the dark. Watching you glow. Lifting a receiver ...
Good point! Perhaps in their minds it was enough to just create the potential and then hope for the best. That was their contribution regardless of outcome.Relayer wrote:I'm sure the urviles assumed the wild magic would be available to be used, but it makes me wonder what would've happened if it hadn't been present, or if Linden hadn't used it...
I like the idea of binding Thomas and Lord Foul together - a literal tying up of loose ends after the ending of the 2nd Chronicles.wayfriend wrote:OR .... Roger was telling the literal truth, and they were for Thomas.Relayer wrote:I suspect that even though Roger was pretending to be TC, and wanted Linden to become suspicious of the ur-viles, that he actually was telling the literal truth... the Manacles are for Roger.
I find that plausible. And it has synergy with HLT's theory, which I think is in the ballpark but not quite right.
Then again, we have two characters with manacle issues. These could be decoys to the reader, as this series is filled with ambiguity. Or they are an obvious candidate.
Maybe to bind Joan and Longwrath together? Someone else said that perhaps "Slay her" means Joan. Perhaps he is channeling Findail, and would rather see Joan slain rather than himself manacled to her.
I also like someone's idea that "manacle" may not mean what we think it means. It may not mean "handcuffs", just as Kevin's Dirt is not dirt. It could be metaphoric. Or it could be an obscure meaning that only Donaldson knows of.
The "man" in "maincles" does mean "hand". Whic could refer to a hand, or a half-handed person, or a person with a strange hand, or a deck hand, or a hand of cards.
The Manacles are for Roger. (I assume they would work by nullifying his Magma hand)
When the Ur Viles came to protect linden (although Esmer stopped them) from being transported into the past by Roger and the Croyel they brought there manacles with them.
Roger then said, they where meant for him.
Ok he may have been impersonating TC. But there still for him.
And that’s Roger.
I would be very surprised if this is not the case.
When the Ur Viles came to protect linden (although Esmer stopped them) from being transported into the past by Roger and the Croyel they brought there manacles with them.
Roger then said, they where meant for him.
Ok he may have been impersonating TC. But there still for him.
And that’s Roger.
I would be very surprised if this is not the case.