Kevin's Watch

Why concentrate so strongly on Covenant's one act of rape when we have Foul indirectly killing whole armies, performing acts of genocide, etc.

I guess I'll answer my own question.

For one thing, we don't expect our hero to do that, but then again, one reason we all love TCTC is because it wasn't something we expected. Also, like Stalin once said: "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic."

Basically, the crime Covenant committed was so direct, so emotional, so up-close-and-personal that we almost felt it ourselves. And then what Foul does is indirect and in one sweeping motion. It's such a horrible thing Foul does that it's too much to comprehend; we ignore it in our minds, as if all those deaths weren't really people like Lena but ants merely being stepped on instead.

In conclusion, I can understand why people rage against Covenant for what he did, BUT what I find funny/ironic is that the most rage the average reader holds is not against the villain (Foul) but against the protagonist himself. I simply find the slightest note of hypocrisy ring whenever we push aside Foul’s myriad atrocities and dissect Covenant’s one crime.

And one last thing: Covenant was not a rapist simply because, well . . . just LOOK AT HIM THROUGHOUT THE BOOKS. If he were a rapist, he would have gloated over the imagery the rape provoked whenever it resurfaced to memory. But no, Covenant mentally tortured himself--HATED himself, like you or I would do if we did something like that.

NO, Covenant was NOT and never was a rapist. Technically, he raped Lena, yes, but was he a rapist in that he enjoyed the act? NO! Was he one of those psychos that would hunt down their victims and do it multiple times to different people? NO! So lay off TC. He's just you or me caught up in two very screwed up situations: leprosy and the Land. What would you have done differently? The point is you can’t know. You can’t know the kind of reactions you’d give in Covenant’s place unless you truly experienced what happened to Covenant.

For example, I remember being quite the morbid kid, thinking thoughts most kids didn't. In 2nd grade I remember toying with the thought of my parents getting divorced, thinking, "How would I react?" I remember a vivid scene instantly struck me: me, standing up in court, looking strong. To end the example, my parents got divorced when I was in third grade. I cried like a baby.

So you can never truly know till its happens. To assume less is to know, and to know is to stop the process of learning, as Frank Herbert (and maybe Einstein) said.

Sorry, I've rambled on. I guess all I meant to say is let's face the facts. Personally, I don't think there's any such thing as a selfless person in this world. There are no white knights. Just ordinary, human people with flaws like the rest of us. Yes, there are selfless acts that make people heroes, but if your very being was totally selfless, then I think it'd be quite the Spartan lifestyle.

“Volunteers need both selfish and selfless motives to sustain their interest” (Natalie de Combray)

well said, Lord Foul, well said!

(I hope I don't come off sounding snide or sarcastic here. If I do, I'm sorry - it's not my intention and English is not my first language.)

Lord Foul wrote:Why concentrate so strongly on Covenant's one act of rape when we have Foul indirectly killing whole armies, performing acts of genocide, etc.

I realize you're being rhethorical, but this is still a very silly question to me. Foul is the villain. He's supposed to be doing all that bad stuff, and we're not supposed to root for him. Bad guys do bad things. It's a little more unusual when the protagonist, the supposed good guy, does a Really Bad Thing.

Lord Foul wrote:I guess I'll answer my own question.

For one thing, we don't expect our hero to do that, but then again, one reason we all love TCTC is because it wasn't something we expected. Also, like Stalin once said: "One death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic."

Basically, the crime Covenant committed was so direct, so emotional, so up-close-and-personal that we almost felt it ourselves. And then what Foul does is indirect and in one sweeping motion. It's such a horrible thing Foul does that it's too much to comprehend; we ignore it in our minds, as if all those deaths weren't really people like Lena but ants merely being stepped on instead.

In conclusion, I can understand why people rage against Covenant for what he did, BUT what I find funny/ironic is that the most rage the average reader holds is not against the villain (Foul) but against the protagonist himself. I simply find the slightest note of hypocrisy ring whenever we push aside Foul’s myriad atrocities and dissect Covenant’s one crime.

Oh, come on. Of course you're more upset when someone you care about and want to like does bad stuff than when someone you already know to be an evil bastard does it. Particularly in a story. There's no hypocrisy in this at all. In fact, if I read your argument literally (which I suspect we're not meant to), it could look like you're defending the rape simply by referring to the actual bad guys doing a lot worse things. That's a pretty unhealthy line of argument in my opinion.

Lord Foul wrote:And one last thing: Covenant was not a rapist simply because, well . . . just LOOK AT HIM THROUGHOUT THE BOOKS. If he were a rapist, he would have gloated over the imagery the rape provoked whenever it resurfaced to memory. But no, Covenant mentally tortured himself--HATED himself, like you or I would do if we did something like that.

NO, Covenant was NOT and never was a rapist. Technically, he raped Lena, yes, but was he a rapist in that he enjoyed the act? NO! Was he one of those psychos that would hunt down their victims and do it multiple times to different people? NO! So lay off TC. He's just you or me caught up in two very screwed up situations: leprosy and the Land. What would you have done differently? The point is you can’t know. You can’t know the kind of reactions you’d give in Covenant’s place unless you truly experienced what happened to Covenant.

I don't know what definition of "rapist" you're using. I'd use it to mean someone who's committed rape. I think your definition seems to exclude a huge number, probably a majority, of real rapists (rapists in the literal sense I'd use, that is).

For the record, I think Covenant does in the end more than pay for his crime and even becomes a kind of hero (but he takes his damn time getting round to it ), but I can't in any way empathize with trying to downplay or gloss over it. It's there all the time, it's vile and ugly, and none of Lord Foul's atrocities really makes it any less so. I think Covenant himself would agree with me on this.

Take care,
Theo

Theo wrote:I realize you're being rhethorical, but this is still a very silly question to me. Foul is the villain. He's supposed to be doing all that bad stuff, and we're not supposed to root for him. Bad guys do bad things. It's a little more unusual when the protagonist, the supposed good guy, does a Really Bad Thing.

Yep.

Theo wrote:There's no hypocrisy in this at all.

I think there is hypocrisy in general. Why presume every antagonist is supposed to be evil. For some characters (not in Foul's case, though) there's a gray area--a human side to them. It's not realistic to set one group aside and go, "Bad guys", and another and go, "Good guys". But then again this is a fantasy book, I suppose. There is a "pure evil" element in the book, but not in reality.

Theo wrote:it could look like you're defending the rape simply by referring to the actual bad guys doing a lot worse things. That's a pretty unhealthy line of argument in my opinion.

It's very unhealthy for you to suggest I'd ever defend the rape of another person. One of my best friends is in jail for being accused of rape. It’s something very real to me that struck home and I’ve felt the pain from both sides of the parties (the person that was allegedly raped and the person--my friend--that was accused of it). What people fail to realize is that the act is wrong but the person is still a human after the rape, just as he was a human before. Just a more tortured human, if they have a normal conscience. I knew him, and he was a good person. I’m not about to presume what led him to that act.

Theo wrote:I don't know what definition of "rapist" you're using. I'd use it to mean someone who's committed rape. I think your definition seems to exclude a huge number, probably a majority, of real rapists (rapists in the literal sense I'd use, that is).

Real rapists to me are people who do it once or repeatedly or a thousand times AND THEN afterwards never feel any remorse. They truly enjoy it. It's obvious Covenant committed the crime of rape, but he's not a rapist in the sense I describe. Nevertheless, I feel some can't distinguish between those two different kinds of people, and so they're treating Covenant as a rapist in the worst kind of sense. Personally I see that as a lack of compassion.

And I won't argue your last paragraph because I agree with it. Very good English, by the way.

To end, I simply think that after all Covenant has done--his honest attempts to try and make restitution for his crime--that it's an insult to label him a rapist.

Lord Foul wrote:NO, Covenant was NOT and never was a rapist. Technically, he raped Lena, yes, but was he a rapist in that he enjoyed the act? NO! Was he one of those psychos that would hunt down their victims and do it multiple times to different people? NO! So lay off TC. He's just you or me caught up in two very screwed up situations: leprosy and the Land. What would you have done differently? The point is you can’t know. You can’t know the kind of reactions you’d give in Covenant’s place unless you truly experienced what happened to Covenant.

*throws two cents*

Let us use our "college level" literary analysis to further assess this proposal.

"...he said with preternatural quietness, 'Are you trying to drive me crazy?'"

"He followed her quickly, his face contorted with a wild grin."

"...he stared at her, at her high, perfect breasts and her short slip, with grim triumph in his eyes..."


Now, this may not look like much evidence to show that he took pleasure in what he did. But follow the emphasized words carefully. Amidst all of the diction pertaining to his insanity, there is clearly a sign that he is doing it with at least some form of wicked joy. Now, I agree that after he realizes what he has done, he becomes sick and vomites. This shows possible signs of regret. But to characterise him as a rapist, we must look at the act itself and what happened during that act. What we see, is too much solid evidence (given by the narrator) to disproove that he did not enjoy what he did.

General definition of a rapist is someone who commited rape, not neccessarily someone who repeats it over and over again.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

We have already established that Thomas Covenant was crazy (either temperarily or permenantly) during his act, and that there is no excuse for what he has done, so no, I am not trying to repeat what I have stated in other topics. Rather, I am pointing out that, that Thomas is indeed a rapist, and that he does not have to be a psychopatic maniac to be one.

I do agree that we tend to underastimate certain situations and that we percieve ourselves to have acted differently if we were in such a situation. Well, I cannot say what I would do if I was Thomas Covenant, but I can tell you for sure what I would not. And I can tell you for certain (just because I know myself) that I would not sexually harrass an innocent being that was nothing but nice to me. But I don't want to go into any of that, because that is an entirely different topic which has been discussed a thousand times already. I simply wanted to explore that part of the novel with literary analysis.

As for the reason why most people put their hate toward Covenant...I think, mainly refering from my own experience, that the main character (which a reader usually is supposed to sympathize with and support) is a guy that commits such act(s), which one would normally only find in a bad guy. I take it that Foul's a bad guy (every story of man-to-man conflict usually has one) so we automatically expect him to be bad. Covenant on the other hand, is supposed to be the "savior of the land" or at least, one expects him to be the bad guy's opponent. Now, usually, you wouldn't expect that main character (the guy your "supposed" to support), who goes against the "evil" character, to also do "bad" things. Also, because Thomas, as the character whom the book revolves around, is so close to us as readers, that we convey most of our feelings towards him (I know that this has already been said).

AAAAH! It took me so long to write this, you people have already stated everything I wrote.

*goes to a corner and cires*

Blue_Spawn wrote:Now, this may not look like much evidence to show that he took pleasure in what he did. But follow the emphasized words carefully. Amidst all of the diction pertaining to his insanity, there is clearly a sign that he is doing it with at least some form of wicked joy.

Okay, during the act he enjoyed it with an animal-like rage. That's why most people get into that mindless act in the first place. But you need to read the rest of the Chronicles, because the moment of the rape wasn't my point about him not being a rapist. You need to simply read more to see what he does to try to amend it and how he agonizes over and over throughout all the books about it.

And I don't care what a dictionary says about a rapist. I know someone who might have raped another person, and he's still a good person--still my friend. There are differences between a man who does it and enjoys it afterwards and a man that does it, realizes what he's done, and feels guilty about it afterwards. And that's all I'm saying.

Lord Foul, have you ever seen the movie Schindler's List? It explores issues of heroism in a way I think you might like...
That even a flawed man can be a great hero...
That perhaps sometimes it even TAKES being a flawed man to become a great hero...

You're preachin' to the choir, Duchess!

Here's another slant, and I'm 2c poorer for it :

You know, the more of this I read, the more I begin to feel that Covenant was actually performing an abhorrent act of violence upon HIS OWN MIND.

Remember that he didn't believe the Land to be real, and that in fact his self-hatred was exacerbated by the "fact" that his mind/imagination/whatever had forced him into this fantasy.

He didn't even think it was a real act, he thought it was a dream, and he couldn't afford these dreams. So I reckon he lost himself in temper (which also has helped in the past to keep him alive) by performing an act of "imagination" against an "imagined" helpless pure person, deliberately to attack himself, and repulse himself back into the real world.

Very real possibility, Landwaster.

My two cents on the rapist issue. If I had once waited tables but don't do so any longer, I am no longer a waiter. I used to be a waiter, I waited, etc. If I stole something once but never habitually and do so no longer, it would be very difficult to label me a thief.

Covenant is not a serial rapist or a confirmed rapist. He is not in the habit of raping, and it would generally completely conflict with his identity... generally being the key word.

I agree with Foul that there's no way of knowing what you would do, but most of us do know what we are. I myself have done similarly disturbing acts in dreams... dreams in which I didn't even know were dreams. It makes me realize there is a dark corner somewhere inside myself, and even though in general I know who I am and what I would do in a given situation, there is no way of complete self determination in the face of extreme events.

And remember... the history of man, even your own family line, is filled with rapists. Not all were tried, punished, or ostracized. A large number were considered upright guys, even heroes, and this isn't because they just managed to fool everybody.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not being apathetic and I'm surely not condoning the act. What I'm saying is that though it may be easy to draw clearcut lines, something will always be lost in doing so.

I hated TC so much at first i stopped reading LFB after about 100 pages and only picked it up again when a friend made me, now im glad he did

I'll take this in reverse order, the most important stuff first.

Lord Foul wrote:It's very unhealthy for you to suggest I'd ever defend the rape of another person.

It would be, certainly. That's not what I meant to suggest at all, but I realize now it could be taken that way and I'm sorry. What I meant to say was that your reasoning, by the way it's worded, leaves itself open to an uncharitable reading that could indeed interpret it that way. I certainly didn't imagine you'd actually want to defend the rape as such. I did not in any way mean to accuse you of this, but rather of confused wording and - perhaps - a muddled argument. But I'm obviously guilty of wording stuff in a confusing way myself.

I stand by my opinion that comparisons to the vile acts of the villains make for a weak argument, but that's a different thing. Perhaps I put things too strongly. Sorry.

Now, on to the arguments themselves...

Lord Foul wrote: I think there is hypocrisy in general. Why presume every antagonist is supposed to be evil. For some characters (not in Foul's case, though) there's a gray area--a human side to them. It's not realistic to set one group aside and go, "Bad guys", and another and go, "Good guys". But then again this is a fantasy book, I suppose. There is a "pure evil" element in the book, but not in reality.

Well, yeah. But that all depends on what world we're talking about, doesn't it? At least in the first Chronicles, the Land is a very black-and-white world. Every character in it is (eventually) clearly identifiable as good or evil. (The only evil characters I remember, in fact, are Foul, the Ravers, and Drool. None of the other cavewights and none of the ur-viles ever become characters, which IMO is a bit of a shame.) Covenant is the only "gray" character in the series, and much of the effect is based on a "gray" character from our reality being dropped into this legendary black-and-white world and being unable to cope with it.

So in the context of the Land and TCTC generally, I think it does make perfect sense to talk about Good Guys and Bad Guys. The picture, as I said, is complicated by the fact that Covenant himself, alone in that world, doesn't fit comfortably into either category.

Lord Foul wrote:Real rapists to me are people who do it once or repeatedly or a thousand times AND THEN afterwards never feel any remorse. They truly enjoy it. It's obvious Covenant committed the crime of rape, but he's not a rapist in the sense I describe. Nevertheless, I feel some can't distinguish between those two different kinds of people, and so they're treating Covenant as a rapist in the worst kind of sense. Personally I see that as a lack of compassion.

I think I see what you mean now. This line of argument is completely new to me, though. I've never heard anyone argue that Covenant is a remorseless psychopath, but I know several people who were disgusted enough by the one rape to lose any interest in following the adventures of this character. And I've never heard anyone else use that definition of "rapist", either.

Lord Foul wrote:And I won't argue your last paragraph because I agree with it. Very good English, by the way.

Thank you.

Lord Foul wrote:To end, I simply think that after all Covenant has done--his honest attempts to try and make restitution for his crime--that it's an insult to label him a rapist.

I'm not sure. Literally speaking, Covenant is a rapist, and Linden is a murderer. The way I read the books, they both realize in different ways that whatever they do, they can never become not a rapist/murderer. But they both make amends in various way and end up becoming more than that.

In fact, come to think of it, I think Linden's "crime" is much better handled in the books than Covenant's. If I ever made that LFB movie (which I won't) I'd probably borrow a couple of elements from that.

Theo

birdandbear wrote:The last time I read them, two things really struck me as they never had before. One was how fundamentally compassionate Covenant is, toward everyone but himself. He is a passionate man, and one of his greatest passions is the victimhood of others. He blindly (and endearingly) leaps to the defense of anyone he sees as helpless. He actually accuses Mhoram of torturing Dhukka, because Dhukka's pain cried out so loudly to him that logic fled, and he became angry at the nearest and therefore most likely source of the creature's torment. Over and over, you see him bleed for anyone and everyone he meets that suffers because he is powerless to help them. Funny. The first time I read the books, (when I was 14) I came away with the impression that Covenant was kind of an emotionless bastard when it came to anyone's circumstances but his own. Now I see that he is exactly the opposite. His heart breaks every time there is some innocent bystander he can't save. He bleeds. And his compassion is far reaching. It's breadth covers everyone from the murdered children at Soaring Woodhelvin, to the very ur-viles that killed them. From poor lost Lena, to mad Pietten. We see this even in his own world, when first he offers the beggar his wedding ring, all that remains of his former self:

It was an icon of himself. It reminded him of where he had been and where he was - of promises made and broken, companionship lost, helplessness - and of his vestigial humanity.

And he gives it to a stranger on the street!
And then, even that's not enough for him. He offers the man even more:

"Look, is there anything I can do for you? Food? a place to stay? You can have what I've got."

Good point, and it neatly ties into the problems I still have with the first book. (I've never actually put these in so many words before - this is a great place. ) I actually found Covenant a highly sympathetic character, and my main beef with the rape of Lena wasn't really that it was horrible but that it made no sense. I know all the usual explanations, but I still don't think they're very strong. The shift is, to me, far too abrupt and comes totally out of the blue.

Some people I know just decided Covenant was an evil bastard and either abandoned the books or read on to see what happened to the Land. That didn't work for me - I already sympathized too much with him. Most of the first Chronicles was like watching a close friend constantly screw up his life and everyone's around him - pretty excruciating. I empathized with Covenant and even identified with him, but grew constantly more exasperated with him continually acting like a smeghead.

Now, I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It's a very powerful idea and one of the major strengths of the trilogy. However, in LFB at least, I don't think Donaldson quite manages to do it justice with his writing.

Theo

I go on holiday for a couple of weeks or three and miss all of this, ain't that a kick in the head. I really hate to have all this catching up to do, next year I'll let you all know when I'm off on Holiday and if you'll all be so kind as to stop posting for the duration? thank you.

I don't have anything new to add to the Covenant as a hero debate, I think his crime can be assessed by looking at the effect it had on the victim and her family, whenever I think about the rape I can't help but thinking about Lena and it makes me weep. I hated T.C for that. Its clear that it's a main (huge) part of the plot and the books just wouldn't be the same without it, so many things happened as a result of that one act.
In the end Covenant was a hero,

Spoiler

he gave his life and saved the Land,

I loved him for that. You know you just have to go with your instinct here and mine tells me that we should be in awe of Covenants deeds in the end - his atonement for that evil crime.

As a sort of definition of heroism I don't think any of the Huruchai are heroes (they could not have behaved differently) but T.C yeah sure a real hero.

I am not a good storyteller (like some of you), I cannot write reply-novels. This is my opinion: I think TC is a hero, but I will never forgive him for raping Lena.

The point is, IMHO: SRD does not want us to forgive Covenant. He himself wouldn't want us to forgive him. That's not the point. The point is to accept him as he is, as he accepts the Land as it is.

On another thought: is Lord Foul evil? Can he be defined as the ultimate evil? But I think this warrants a new thread, maybe I'll start one.

What also amazes me is how some characters are somewhat passive towards what Covenant has done.

When Atiaran said that she could set aside all of his crimes except for his act of not protecting the Wraiths, I almost broke down laughing. lol She reminded me at that point of some religiously brainwashed person, who cares more for God than he does for his own loved ones.

Ah, well...

the people of the Land cared for the Land more then they did themselves. Their whole lives were devoted to its service. Hence the Oath of Peace.

Atarian was in hopeless turmoil over what happened to Lena. She was also in turmoil over what happened to the Wraiths. But, she knew that Covenant HAD to get to Revelstonedo deliver the Foul's message. She also knew that the Lords would need the white gold to defend the Land.

"No matter. All things end, in perversion and death. Sorrow belongs to those who also hope. But that Unfettered One gave his life so that you and your message and your ring might reach the Lords. The we will accomplish, so that such sacrifices may have meaning"

She loathed him, but she knew how desperately important he and his ring were to the Land...

At last Covenant saw clearly the moral struggle that wasted her, the triple conflict between her abhorrence of him, her fear for the Land, and her dismay at her own weakness--a struggle whose expense exhausted her resources, reduced her to penury. The sight shamed his heart, made him drop his gaze. Without thinking, he reached toward her and said in a voice full of self-contradicting pleas, "Don't give up."

"Give up?" She gasped in virulence, backing away from him. "If I gave up, I would stab you where you stand!" Suddenly, she thrust a hand into her robe and snatched out the stone knife like the one Covenant had lost. Brandishing it, she spat, "since the Celebration--since you permitted Wraiths to die--this blade has cried out for your blood. Other crimes I could set aside. I speak for my own. But that--! To countenance such desecration--!"

She hurled the knife savagely to the ground, so that it stuck hilt-deep in the turf by Covenant's feet. "Behold!" She cried, and in that instant her voice became abruptly gelid, calm. "I wound the Earth instead of you. It is fitting. I have done little else since you entered the Land."

"Now here my last word Unbeliever. I let you go because these decisions surpass me. Delivering children in the Stonedown does not fit me for such choices. But I will not intrude my desires on the one hope of the Land--barren as that hope is. Remember that I have withheld my hand--I have kept my oath."

"Have you?" He asked, moved by a complex impulse of sympathy and nameless ire.

"She pointed a trembling finger at her knife. "I have not harmed you. I have brought you here."

"You've hurt yourself."

"That is my Oath." She breathed stiffly "Now, farwell. When you have returned safely to your own world, remember what evil is."

Okay, that's a long quote, but it shows the extremity of Atarian's turmoil. She cries out for retribution, for punishment. But she knows the Land's need and sets aside her personal wants.

And she isn't the only one. Many others react to him the same way. The Land's need circumvents any and all personal desires. Which he hates. He hates the wonton forgiveness the people of the Land bestow upon him. Honor and glory...

"I'm not bloody Berek!"

It tears him up.

You have only read a few chapters of six long books...if you would read further in the next two books you will learn much more about both Atiaran and Lena. Since you have read so little and no one wants to spoil the story for you, it makes it very difficult to talk to you about a lot of these issues.