Kevin's Watch

Going to an alternate reality inhabited by Elohim and Ravers is certainly possible in fiction, so what you mean to say is that it's not credible in the case of the Chrons. Maybe not. However, if your argument is based on what is and is not possible for fiction, especially fantasy, then I can imagine TC bifurcating into two physical bodies along two different metaphysical planes of reality, if necessary.

No, I said what I meant to say. You're the one who seems to be arguing that things aren't plausible--for instance Covenant's doppleganger interacting with other characters in the "real world," if I understand you correctly. I'm saying that since we're already dealing with a fantastic story, that scenario doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility, to me.

However, if your argument is based on what is and is not possible for fiction, especially fantasy, then I can imagine TC bifurcating into two physical bodies along two different metaphysical planes of reality, if necessary.

But you can't imagine him bifurcating "spiritually" in his own world? Why is one more fantastic than another?

In the scenario you seem to be arguing for, the Creator is a god-like being who comes to Covenant, talks to him about love, and then sends him to his created world to be his champion. Thus, according to that interpretation, the world Covenant lives in is already one in which magical gods visit people, gods who are powerful enough to create entire worlds. That simple fact makes Covenant's world more magical than the idea of his doppleganger appearing to him and others.

Malik23 wrote:No, I said what I meant to say. You're the one who seems to be arguing that things aren't plausible--for instance Covenant's doppleganger interacting with other characters in the "real world," if I understand you correctly. I'm saying that since we're already dealing with a fantastic story, that scenario doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility, to me.

However, if your argument is based on what is and is not possible for fiction, especially fantasy, then I can imagine TC bifurcating into two physical bodies along two different metaphysical planes of reality, if necessary.

But you can't imagine him bifurcating "spiritually" in his own world? Why is one more fantastic than another?

In the scenario you seem to be arguing for, the Creator is a god-like being who comes to Covenant, talks to him about love, and then sends him to his created world to be his champion. Thus, according to that interpretation, the world Covenant lives in is already one in which magical gods visit people, gods who are powerful enough to create entire worlds. That simple fact makes Covenant's world more magical than the idea of his doppleganger appearing to him and others.

In the beginning, SRD wanted to create a moral dilemma. But what he really created was an ontological one. And even though he responds by saying the old man in the ochre robe is TC's doppleganger, this really doesn't answer anything.

If some people in our world believe that dopplegangers do exist, then that makes our world just as fantastic as TC's "real" world. And such phenomena is not unheard of even in my own personal experience even though I don't believe in them.

Anyway, I've argued for both sides in the past, and what it boils down to is exactly as you stated it above: an interpretation. An interpretation is only good for this or that purpose. You could very well argue for the side I may be taking at present, even though it is only for rhetorical purposes. Strange things are possible even in TC's "real" world. Foul did mysteriously appear in the flames, after all. Was that another one of TC's dopplegangers, and wasn't it witnessed by all those cult members? And if the doppleganger was Foul, then doesn't he really exist?

And why is any one interpretation more fantastic than the other? That's the right question to ask, in my opinion. So it is not far-fetched to suggest that TC's doppleganger is the Creator of another universe, the Land, whatever it is. One interpretation is to go with TC on these questions. If he says "whatever it is, the Land is not real," then I should take his word for it. After all, it is his experience.

That a doppleganger can create a universe is not a Christian interpretation per se, but one could easily be textually supported, because "The dreams of men belong to God."

I wish to throw in some conjecture...

If TC is the Creator (or his Doppelganger is, which is essentially the same thing), would that imply that everything which has happened in the Land, or the dimension in which the Land exists - from the actual creation of the planet, through the old Lords, the R.O.D, up til the present time - would that not have had to happen since Covenant's Birth in the 'real' world?

And if the Land was created by an aspect of Covenant, how is it that it didn't collapse on itself through the advent of his death?

Indeed, if the Despiser and the Creator are both aspects of TC, whether visible to others or not, why it is that the Creator has (for all we know) ceased to exist, yet his other aspect (Fangthane) still lives on?

Ninjaboy, good questions. I tend to think the Land as "larger" than Covenant, and this is why others can go there, too. Even people Covenant doesn't know--such as Troy. I don't think it's Covenant's personal dream, but neither do I think it's a real, physical world. I think it's an archetypal myth world, a land of Platonic-like existence, which we all have access to in virtue of a shared intersubjective connection to ideal universals.

That may not be right, but it's the only way I can wrap my head around it without going crazy from a confrontation with paradox.

So, archetypes like "Creator" and "Despiser" would apply to everyone. We all have inner Creators and Despisers--or, inner creative and destructive sides. The beggar might be the representation of this for Covenant, and Covenant alone. But that's just his personal manifestation of this universal archetype. So just because the beggar is gone, the Creator may not be. And of course Foul certainly isn't. The Creator never made an appearance in the Land, anyway. Which is strange. Why should his creative side be barred from the Land? Maybe because white gold plays that role: it is the creative force of determining his own meaning.

In the beginning, SRD wanted to create a moral dilemma. But what he really created was an ontological one.

WotWE, ontological and moral dilemmas are united in the concept of authenticity. As I pointed out in the "beware, be true" thread, the fundamental question of ethics concerns the source of ones moral decisions, learning to become the judge/lawgiver/enforcer of your own personal moral laws, instead of abdicating that responsibility to someone else (authority figures) or to a belief system (religions). Believing the Land is unreal means that Covenant doesn't have to take responsibility for his choices in it. It's an excuse to be inauthentic (cowardly). So the ontological status of the Land isn't as important as Covenant's response to it, or how he uses this ontological stance to avoid or engage his responsibility.

The Land turns the ontological-ethical issue on its head. In the real world, thinking that value is external and absolute is an ontological belief about the status of moral truths. That belief, rather than unbelief, allows one to do the same thing Covenant does in the Land (at first), i.e. abdicate his responsibility to be the arbiter of meaning. If value and meaning are absolute/external, then you don't have to create it or define it; you simply discover it by looking outside yourself. This is the opposite situation as the Land, where unbelief causes this inauthenticity.

So it is not far-fetched to suggest that TC's doppleganger is the Creator of another universe, the Land, whatever it is. One interpretation is to go with TC on these questions. If he says "whatever it is, the Land is not real," then I should take his word for it. After all, it is his experience.

That a doppleganger can create a universe is not a Christian interpretation per se, but one could easily be textually supported, because "The dreams of men belong to God."

I have no objection to any of that, except that I don't believe Covenant's creative side created the Land. I think the Land is more universal than that. I think the act of creation Donaldson is talking about is the creation of meaning and value, not worlds.

ninjaboy wrote:I wish to throw in some conjecture...

If TC is the Creator (or his Dippleganger is, which is essentially the same thing), would that imply that everything which has happened in the Land, or the dimension in which the Land exists - from the actual creation of the planet, through the old Lords, the R.O.D, up til the present time - would that not have had to happen since Covenant's Birth in the 'real' world?

And if the Land was created by an aspect of Covenant, how is it that it didn't collapse on itself through the advent of his death?

Indeed, if the Despiser and the Creator are both aspects of TC, whether visible to others or not, why it is that the Creator has (for all we know) ceased to exist, yet his other aspect (Fangthane) still lives on?

SRD has a broad definition of what he means by a doppleganger.

Well of *course* there's "some deeper reason". <grin> But I hope you don't expect me to tell you what it is. I mean, aside from obvious things like: she has a white gold ring (the "mate" to Covenant's); and her "betrayal" of her marriage vows has left her vulnerable to the insidious seductions of Despite. However, I will say that if you're willing to stretch a point or three, you could conceivably think of her [Joan] as Covenant's thematic doppleganger.

I can't address much of this. But you might try thinking of Roger as his father's doppleganger.

This puts "real" characters on the same level as "fantasy" characters.

Well, you introduced the term doppleganger and I went with it. I'm not sure how much you can conclude from the fact that Donaldson uses that term loosely--certainly not that Joan is the equivalent of the beggar. A "thematic" doppleganger isn't the same as a literal one.

Spoiler

Also, I think he was talking about Roger appearing as TC in FR, and Roger trying to assume his father's role at the beginning of Runes.

Perhaps SRD used the term "doppleganger" as loosely as he spelled it. And a "doppleganger" is a double, not an externalization of some aspect of yourself. The beggar isn't TC's double, so they are all thematic dopplegangers and not literal ones.

Well 'doppleganger' really doesn't seem to be the right word for what we mean when we talk of Covenant's alleged relationship with the Creator and the Render. They're a part of him, or .. wait a minute..

In a previous thread there was questions relating to the relationship between the Ravers and the Humans who came into the land at a similar time.. Some suggested that the Ravers were the embodiment of the darker ways of the Humans - the collective humanity of the Land.. And that would support the idea that the 'dimension' of and Characters within the Land exist independently of Covenant, including Fangthane.. It could be an expression of humanity's desire for a 'perfect' world, and Corruption could be an expression of the Wickedness of humans in the 'real' world.

Within the Chronicles there are examples of the Despiser reaching out and influencing people in the 'real' world. And if the Beggar was indeed Covenant's own representation of the Creator, I can't think of an explanation of why he would have a physical presence in the 'real' world. A ghost I could accept, but his actual physical existence?

Dopplegangers are just people who look identical to you, yet you are unrelated and are generally unaware of the other's existance. Yeah? It's easier to say that "the Creator and the Render are TC's Dopplegangers" than it is to say "the Creator and Render are embodiement's of TC (or Humanity's) creative and destructive aspects, respectively".

IMHO I am happy to understand the Land, the Creator and the Render as characterisations of aspects of humanity. But I don't see the Beggar as the Creator in that scenario, otherwise I'd have to accept that an expression of either Humanity's or Covenants creative side physically existed in the 'real world' and if you argue that the Beggar was TC's 'personal' expression of his creative aspect, then every individual could concievably have their own individual characterisation of their creativity physically exist in the world in which they too exist.

But you're welcome to convince me otherwise!

Originally, a doppleganger was a shade or ghost or spectre that looked like a real person. sf/fantasy, mysteries etc. have expanded it include all the other stuff...but the spectre definition works pretty well in this context, when you take externalization of the internal into account.

ninjaboy wrote:Well 'doppleganger' really doesn't seem to be the right word for what we mean when we talk of Covenant's alleged relationship with the Creator and the Render. They're a part of him, or .. wait a minute..

In a previous thread there was questions relating to the relationship between the Ravers and the Humans who came into the land at a similar time.. Some suggested that the Ravers were the embodiment of the darker ways of the Humans - the collective humanity of the Land.. And that would support the idea that the 'dimension' of and Characters within the Land exist independently of Covenant, including Fangthane.. It could be an expression of humanity's desire for a 'perfect' world, and Corruption could be an expression of the Wickedness of humans in the 'real' world.

Within the Chronicles there are examples of the Despiser reaching out and influencing people in the 'real' world. And if the Beggar was indeed Covenant's own representation of the Creator, I can't think of an explanation of why he would have a physical presence in the 'real' world. A ghost I could accept, but his actual physical existence?

Dopplegangers are just people who look identical to you, yet you are unrelated and are generally unaware of the other's existance. Yeah? It's easier to say that "the Creator and the Render are TC's Dopplegangers" than it is to say "the Creator and Render are embodiement's of TC (or Humanity's) creative and destructive aspects, respectively".

IMHO I am happy to understand the Land, the Creator and the Render as characterisations of aspects of humanity. But I don't see the Beggar as the Creator in that scenario, otherwise I'd have to accept that an expression of either Humanity's or Covenants creative side physically existed in the 'real world' and if you argue that the Beggar was TC's 'personal' expression of his creative aspect, then every individual could concievably have their own individual characterisation of their creativity physically exist in the world in which they too exist.

But you're welcome to convince me otherwise!

There is nothing to convince you out of. It is traditional to the fantasy genre that characters will represent ideas iconically. There is no better place to represent them. But they are not "doppelgangers" (correcting SRD's spelling in the GI) per se. And since he uses the term loosely, we don't know what he really means by it. There is something to be said for Malik's observation that the Land is archetypal. But in literature such places, where every issue is black and white, good vs. evil, exist to teach lessons. If the lesson in this case is that there is no good or evil, then what SRD is creating with the Chrons should be called anti-fantasy.

Anti-fantasy you say.. Perhaps we should start holding anti-fantasy conventions and so forth.. That would be fun!

And it would then be fair to say that if Donaldson isn't regarded as the best Fantasy writer by everyone, he should be universally acknowledged as the best Anti-fantasy author.. ever.

The best way to portray anti-fantasy is not through realism but through the fantasy genre itself.

Thomas Covenant, a fantasy hero who rejects the label of hero or even anti-hero, who refuses to believe in the fantasy world and its judgments about him.

Who sees through the misapprehensions that the characters in a fantasy realm commonly cling to, such as Hile Troy's belief that battle is necessary to defeat Lord Foul, or Mhoram's belief that power (the old lore) is the necessary response to evil. He sees this because he knows that in reality evil might actually win, as in the case of his leprosy, and that futility is ultimately a very real possibility.

Those critics who accuse SRD of being a mere Tolkien imitator need to understand that the only way to create a parody is through imitation, although it's not a parody like "Bored of the Rings." (Has anybody else here read that?) It's more of a serious attempt at a travesty. SRD is not against fantasy per se, but he's not above throwing a little mud at critics who denigrate an entire genre for being unrealistic and silly, and at fantasy authors who keep this idea active through writing unrealistic and silly books.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:But in literature such places, where every issue is black and white, good vs. evil, exist to teach lessons. If the lesson in this case is that there is no good or evil, then what SRD is creating with the Chrons should be called anti-fantasy.

Whoa! No good and no evil? That's Donaldson's lesson?!?!

I could not disagree more. I think Malik went awry a little earlier in stating that Covenant needs to reject his destructive side and embrace his creative one. No... what Covenant needs to do is embrace ... and integrate ... both sides.

Not through denying that there is a distinction. But through understanding the purposes, and limitations, of both.

In the Gradual Interview, Donaldson wrote:Such "Covenant"-esque ideas as "innocence is impotence" and "only the guilty have power" are inferences drawn from the basic precepts of free will. They might be rephrased thus: only a person who has truly experienced the consequences of his/her own destructive actions is qualified to evaluate--is, indeed, capable of evaluating--his/her future actions in order to make meaningful choices between destruction and preservation. Hile Troy is an interesting example. He's "innocent" in a way that Covenant is not: he's never done anything even remotely comparable to the rape of Lena. As a result, he's bloody dangerous. He literally doesn't know what he's doing: he hasn't learned the kind of humility that comes from meeting his own inner Despiser face-to-face. Therefore, in spite of all his good intentions, he makes decisions which bear an ineluctable resemblence to Kevin's.

(07/13/2004)

Doesn't Donaldson say, over and over, that you creation is irrevocably tied to destruction, and to truly be alive one must contain the seeds of destruction?

Covenant needs to embrace and integrate Foul, not reject Foul, in order to be complete.

That's what Donaldson refers to, I believe, as Acceptance.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:The best way to portray anti-fantasy is not through realism but through the fantasy genre itself.

I disagree with your premise that leads to this conclusion; is it any wonder that I disagree with the conclusion as well?

According to Donaldson's paper on Fantasy, he didn't try to create an anti-fantasy, he tried to advance fantasy, by removing it from a landscape where it was disconnected from, and hence ineffectual to, people struggling to find meaning in their lives in our real reality.

I know he was talking about advancing fantasy, I obviously read the essay too. However, the nature of Unbelief denies fantasy. TC's Unbelief holds that the the struggle between good and evil is an illusion. TC even told Hile Troy that Foul's enormous army of perhaps over 500,000 creatures was an illusion.

If the Land is an expression of TC's internal conflicts, then he is saying that those conflicts are an illusion. Accepting the illusory nature of the conflict between good and evil constitutes an affirmation of life.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Unbelief holds that the the struggle between good and evil is an illusion.

If that's what you take away from the story, then you're not wrong.

But the way I see it, Unbelief is about the Land being a dream (or illusion). And the resolution, in the first Chronicles, depends on finding that good and evil are real, despite they're being found only in a dream.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Unbelief holds that the the struggle between good and evil is an illusion.

If that's what you take away from the story, then you're not wrong.

But the way I see it, Unbelief is about the Land being a dream (or illusion). And the resolution, in the first Chronicles, depends on finding that good and evil are real, despite they're being found only in a dream.

My thesis was not negative. You omitted the part where I referred to the affirmation of life. The part where I said the struggle is an illusion was intended to build up to affirmation of life. The story therefore has positive value not merely negative value. What I take from the story, particularly the ending, was TC's affirmation of life and rejection of illusion. Especially telling is the part where the Creator offers to let him live out his life as a hero in the Land, but he rejects it for life in the "real" world as an outcast and leper. Rejection of heroism is also an explicit rejection of fantasy, it is anti-fantasy.

SRD's attempt to advance fantasy is not so much anti-fantasy, it involves the externalization thesis. Through externalization, fantasy is thereby converted into something more "realistic," that is, more applicable to reality as its very themes are borrowed from something real albeit internal. For example, the Despiser is that part of TC which hates lepers.

I think I see part of your objection, Wayfriend. You take "anti-fantasy" to mean "against the fantasy genre." Not unless the anti-hero is against heroism. But "hero" precludes "anti-hero." And by the same token, "fantasy" precludes "anti-fantasy."

I pronounce "anti-fantasy" as one word, not "anti-FANtasy," but "antifantasy."

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think I see part of your objection, Wayfriend. You take "anti-fantasy" to mean "against the fantasy genre."

No, I take it to mean a style of literature which uses core assumptions and devices that are opposite to those that fantasy literature does.

IMO, TC only "rejected illusion" when it came time for the Creator's gratitude. When he defeated Foul, he was very much accepting the illusion, to continue using your words. Accept, despite Unbelief.

In [u]The Power that Preserves[/u] was wrote:"How is it possible that you can loathe or love where you do not believe?"

"Nevertheless."

"How is it possible to disbelieve where you loathe or love?"

"Still."

So, if you view the entire conclusion, and not just a fragment, the idea that TC rejected illusion won't hold up for me. He affirmed both life and dream.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think I see part of your objection, Wayfriend. You take "anti-fantasy" to mean "against the fantasy genre."

No, I take it to mean a style of literature which uses core assumptions and devices that are opposite to those that fantasy literature does.

IMO, TC only "rejected illusion" when it came time for the Creator's gratitude. When he defeated Foul, he was very much accepting the illusion, to continue using your words. Accept, despite Unbelief.

In [u]The Power that Preserves[/u] was wrote:"How is it possible that you can loathe or love where you do not believe?"

"Nevertheless."

"How is it possible to disbelieve where you loathe or love?"

"Still."

So, if you view the entire conclusion, and not just a fragment, the idea that TC rejected illusion won't hold up for me. He affirmed both life and dream.

TC was the Unbeliever to the very end, he never affirmed the Land. Instead, he affirmed what the Land stands for. If the Land stands for Beauty, then he affirmed that Beauty and its affect on him. If the Land stands for Love, then he affirmed Love, not the Land itself. If he accepted anything, TC accepted that the Land, although unreal, had this affect on him. That is the eye of the paradox.