RE-READING THE ENTIRE CHRONICLES

[Zarathustra]

And a whopper: she mistook Roger for Thomas! She was mistaken. And she trusted him enough to go back in time with him. That was a mistake, too. Roger clearly wasn't trustworthy

But Linden never trusted Roger in his TC guise enough to give him the ring, and was forced to go into the past with Roger by the will of the Masters. Faced with this opposition, even Stave and Mahrtiir could see no other road, and could only advise compliance.

Yeah, she never trusted Roger completely. But she didn't listen her gut, either. Part of her wanted to believe, needed to believe. Just because she couldn't see any other path doesn't mean that she wasn't mistaken. Isaac Newton couldn't imagine any other alternative to absolute time/space, but he was mistaken. It's relative, as Einstein showed. Granted, modern science may never have been invented (or would've taken much longer) if it hadn't been for Newton and his mistakes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were mistakes.

Linden did not need to go back in time with Roger. She could have created a caesure and gone back to Wildwood to get the Runes on the Staff, just as she retrieved the knowledge of forbidding and a new forestal. She also could have retrieved the Seven Words this way. The purpose (narratively) of the whole Roger charade was drama, not necessity.

I just don't accept the idea that there was only one possible path to saving the Land and getting her son, and that Linden--in complete ignorance!--just happened to accidentally and mistakenly stumble upon exactly the right path, and every decision she made was the only possible correct decision. She made the decisions that told the story Donaldson wanted to tell. That's it. And part of that story was coming to grips with the fact that we must choose and act despite the fact that a clear, obviously correct path doesn't always exist. We muddle our way through life and sometimes muck it up, but with the correct set of values and determination to face dark truths, we can achieve a measure of success. If there was only one path to success, we wouldn't have needed three "saviors" all seeking their own individual paths.

Another way to look at this is to say that if there was only one possible correct path for Linden, then Donaldson couldn't have possibly written it in any other way, which is absurd. He could have invented whatever he wanted! And that includes a different path to victory.

[MsMary]

+JMJ+

Yay! A recruit for Linden's Army! Suck it, THOOLAHns!

I will not sacrifice Linden. We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our threads, and we fall back. They assimilate entire forums, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!

Wos, Linden's Army (LA) are the supporters of Linden. THOOLAH are those who find despair in her existence. From most of your posts, ali is saying you belong in LA.

And for those who haven't finished the chrons, there is OPAL (Opinion Pending About Linden), which I was until I finished the chrons.

Despair isn't really the right word for THOOLAH.
Mostly we find her whininess excessively irritating.

[wayfriend]

Mostly we find her whininess excessively irritating.

People often make similar remarks about THOOLAH. Irony.

Expecting the beggar to have shown up (and being pissed about it) was a mistake. I never understood why she thought he should have.

It's not like anyone could know what the rules are.

Making a decision based on limited information which later, when you understand more about it, you wished you chosen differently ... well, that's life. It's not a mistake. Not unless you made a poor decision with the information you had. You have to judge people based on what the had to work with.

But Linden never trusted Roger in his TC guise enough to give him the ring, and was forced to go into the past with Roger by the will of the Masters. Faced with this opposition, even Stave and Mahrtiir could see no other road, and could only advise compliance.

That's precisely what I mean: good decision based on information at hand. Linden had no way of knowing that it was possible for Roger to do that, or even that Roger was in the Land at all. All she had to go on was what faux-Covenant said. I think saying it's a mistake for her not to have recognized Roger is like faulting her for not being prescient.

But you don't have to take a fan's word for it. The author tells us again and again what to think about Linden's actions. This represents what the author needs you to understand in order to understand the characters.

"Yet I know with a certainty which surpasses utterance that the awakening of the Worm was the outcome of Fangthane’s cunning, not of any desire for Desecration in you. You acted only upon your love for the Timewarden, and upon your love for your son. Linden Avery, Chosen, Ringthane, I am offended to the marrow of my bones that these sleepless ones have dared to think ill of you."

And that's only one of a myriad of similar samples.

In my opinion it's crucial to understand this. So much of the story is about why Linden isn't at fault.

And lastly, I will share a GI answer, which I have taken to heart (because I asked the question):

We could have a truly excruciating discussion here that begins by trying to define things like "mistake" and expands to include mistakes made by authors as well as mistakes made by characters. But I am *so* not in the mood.... <rueful smile> Instead I'll just say:

If you accept the notion that "The ends do not justify the means," then you also have to accept that "The ends cannot be used to evaluate the means." And yet somehow I suspect that every "mistake" attributed to, say, Linden involves judging her actions by their outcomes.

As it happens, there are no words adequate to describe how completely I do *not* think in such terms while I'm working. From my perspective, none of my characters has *ever* made a mistake. How can I say that? 1) Because if they didn't do what they do, there wouldn't be a story. And 2) because if they didn't do what they do, they wouldn't be who they are--which would mean that *I*, rather than my characters, have screwed up.

If you want to argue that an action can be called a mistake when it produces a terrible outcome, then simple logic requires you to argue also that the ends justify the means. But if people like Covenant and Linden believed that the ends justify the means, you could have kissed the Land goodby a long time ago.

(03/22/2008)

I found that insightful, how he inverted the ends-justify-the-means proposition to produce a useful truth.

Linden shouldn't be judged on the outcome of her actions, but only on the process she used to make her decisions. And if you operate with that in mind, many common criticisms of her evaporate.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Making a decision based on limited information which later, when you understand more about it, you wished you chosen differently ... well, that's life. It's not a mistake. Not unless you made a poor decision with the information you had. You have to judge people based on what the had to work with.

You're seem to be defining "mistake" differently than I. I'm not measuring "mistake" by the spatio-temporal circumstances which follow upon her mistakes. Her mistake was in thinking that she could do evil to accomplish good. Cocksure and reckless, she spends the entire series making mistakes (on the main). That good comes about from them points toward the other pole of the mystery (which stands in contrast to SDR's earlier treatment of Free Will): Providence.

Regardless of our largely semantic differences in defining "mistake", I think it's safe to say that the Linden of the LCs is not the "same old, same old" Linden of 2nd Chrons.

[Zarathustra]

WF, you and Donaldson only address one (or a few) arguments for the proposition, "Linden made mistakes," as well as only addressing one (or a few) meanings of the term, "mistake." And he admits that from the outset, by admitting that we could debate the meaning of that term. I agree, the term is complex and can be elucidated through discussion. So let's do that.

'Mistake' can be used to:

1. Assign blame (which I'm not doing).
2. Point out an incorrect policy for a specific goal, i.e. one which is inappropriate or insufficient to that goal and thus can't achieve it (which I'm not doing, since her actions turned out fine in the end).
3. Point out a misconception and the actions based on that misconception (which I am doing, in some cases, for instance believing Roger is Covenant).
4. Point out a flawed methodology, i.e. criticizing the means regardless of the ends. For example, using astrology to help one make a decision. Even if it has good results (or bad), it's still a mistaken way to operate in the word. I think one could make the case that Linden's methodology has some flaws, especially since it includes operating on the basis of flawed assumptions (see 3).
5. And yes, to criticize actions which produce horrible results, like waking the Worm. This one I'm most certainly doing. Donaldson is wrong on this point (see argument below).
6. Point out mistakes of the author. This one is irrelevant. Donaldson confuses the issue by bringing it up.

Donaldson only addresses the last two (thus, his answer is incomplete and doesn't address my points). And you only address the first one here:

I think saying it's a mistake for her not to have recognized Roger is like faulting her for not being prescient.

Pointing out that she was mistaken isn't the same as faulting her. (That conflates 1 and 3.) Pointing out that she's not prescient is merely another way of saying she's human and makes mistakes. So yeah, she's not prescient. But no, that's not her fault.

And you also address #1 here:

In my opinion it's crucial to understand this. So much of the story is about why Linden isn't at fault.

I agree, actually. That's partly what the story is about. But good or even pure intentions don't justify the means, no more than the ends justify them. Acting in ways that ignore the (dire) consequences is a mistake, regardless of whether one's heart is in the right place. George Bush thought he was doing the right thing by invading Iraq. His heart was in the right place, because he thought he was protecting America. Do you fault him? Of course you do.

And the reason you do is because Donaldson's argument is flawed:

If you want to argue that an action can be called a mistake when it produces a terrible outcome, then simple logic requires you to argue also that the ends justify the means.

This is a logical fallacy. It sounds good because it's a pithy turn of phrase, but it's hogwash. Pointing out that an action is wrong because it leads to a terrible outcome does NOT imply that good outcomes justify horrible means. These are two separate judgments. Logic isn't reversible like this. All swans may be white, but that doesn't mean all white things are swans. Every action which leads to a terrible end is a mistake, but that doesn't mean every mistake can't perhaps have a good end.

Ends don't justify means, but they can certainly be used to invalidate, condemn, or correct them. Otherwise, how can we *ever* learn from our mistakes if we don't judge them--at least partially--on the basis of the results???

A 'useful truth?' Hardly. Just try applying it to anything in the world (for instance to the War in Iraq example above). Donaldson is talking nonsense that none of us actually believe in our lives. He's justifying his narrative choices for a work of fiction, that's it (again, thinking of his own mistakes). This is clear from the rest of the answer, where he conflates his mistakes with his characters' (another fallacy--level confusion). And in the end he invalidates everything else he has said by framing it terms of "there wouldn't have been a story" and "these characters wouldn't be who they are," therefore I didn't make any mistakes ... as if anyone is saying a different story or different characters would have been a mistake. No, they wouldn't. They'd just be different. So it's a false choice.

Donaldson is not a logician. No one is faulting him for that. But he is mistaken.

[aliantha]

+JMJ+

I will not sacrifice Linden. We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our threads, and we fall back. They assimilate entire forums, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!

Wos, Linden's Army (LA) are the supporters of Linden. THOOLAH are those who find despair in her existence. From most of your posts, ali is saying you belong in LA.

Yah, I got it. I was simply plus-oneing aliantha.

Tough room.

Emotions often run high when THOOLAH is involved. Glad to have you on the right side, Wos!

Z -- good post. SRD obviously (to me, anyway) views the question of Linden's actions differently than a reader would. Readers weigh a character's actions based on what a real person would do. That's a concern for the author, as well, because the author has to craft a plausible character who behaves in a (fairly) consistent way. But SRD's aim is to tell the story he wants to tell. So maybe Linden's not as "real" to him as she is to us? I dunno.

I mean, I'm not in SRD's league (not by a long shot!), but I'm very clear that Naomi and Joseph aren't real people. They're characters I made up to tell the story I wanted to tell. And yet I've had readers tell me that they think Joseph is hawt. It's like he's more real to them, in a way, than he is to me. Do you feel that way about the characters in your book, too?

[Cord Hurn]

Yeah, she never trusted Roger completely. But she didn't listen her gut, either. Part of her wanted to believe, needed to believe. Just because she couldn't see any other path doesn't mean that she wasn't mistaken. Isaac Newton couldn't imagine any other alternative to absolute time/space, but he was mistaken. It's relative, as Einstein showed. Granted, modern science may never have been invented (or would've taken much longer) if it hadn't been for Newton and his mistakes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were mistakes.

Sure, she listened to her gut! That's why she kept the Mahdoubt's advice in mind to be cautious of love, and why she sought answers about this TC from Esmer. And it's why she sought reassurance from Mahrtiir that the first loyalty of the Ramen and Stave would be to her, not this Covenant that recently rode in. And the Masters gave precedence to Roger's desires over Linden's; they forced her to go back in time with him. All Linden wanted to do was foil the Demondim by removing their access to the Illearth Stone. Without a doubt Linden's made plenty of mistakes in the Last Chronicles, but this really wasn't one of those times.

What was her alternative? Start slaughtering Masters with either the white gold or the Staff until they surrounded her, knocked her out, took away the Staff, and gave the ring to Roger ("TC")? Well, the Earth would have been undone, right then, if that had happened. Handir had already warned Linden that the Masters would suffice to take her instruments of power away from her, if they felt like doing so.

Using Newton for comparison isn't a strong analogy, because the choices he had to make in determining how physics worked hasn't got anything to do with Linden being forced to go back in time. So far as I know, Newton wasn't forced to come to his conclusions by a threatening army of warriors. That she gained the Seven Words and the runes on the SOL doesn't change the fact that she was forced by the Masters to go where the fake Covenant wanted. In this case, any mistake here is made by the Masters.

[wayfriend]

Her mistake was in thinking that she could do evil to accomplish good. Cocksure and reckless, she spends the entire series making mistakes (on the main). That good comes about from them points toward the other pole of the mystery (which stands in contrast to SDR's earlier treatment of Free Will): Providence.

Now that's a pretty interesting take on the situation. I'd like to explore that. (And not to say 'you're wrong'.) IIUC, you seem to think that Linden had hubris, but was constantly rescued from it's logical result by something like divine intervention. Is that the essence of it?

That's a concern for the author, as well, because the author has to craft a plausible character who behaves in a (fairly) consistent way. But SRD's aim is to tell the story he wants to tell. So maybe Linden's not as "real" to him as she is to us?

I think he creates a character who has realistic reasons to behave in a way that tells the story he wants to tell. The plot has a starting point, but the character is designed from the start to take that and run in the direction he wants the story to go. If authenticity of response is a concern (and it is!) then you work backwards and build a character that has the desired response to the situation. Which is, I think, why Donaldson says that his characters are put into dilemmas that they need. (And that they need.) It's because they were designed to need the situation.

And yet I've had readers tell me that they think Joseph is hawt.

But he was drawn that way, wasn't he? He kept managing to lose his shirt. And pants.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Her mistake was in thinking that she could do evil to accomplish good. Cocksure and reckless, she spends the entire series making mistakes (on the main). That good comes about from them points toward the other pole of the mystery (which stands in contrast to SDR's earlier treatment of Free Will): Providence.

Now that's a pretty interesting take on the situation. I'd like to explore that. (And not to say 'you're wrong'.) IIUC, you seem to think that Linden had hubris, but was constantly rescued from it's logical result by something like divine intervention. Is that the essence of it?

Basically.

I was about a 100 pages or so through AATE, when I was thinking, "gee this seems like Providence may well be an overarching theme of the LCs". And sho'nuff, a few chapters later, the word "providence" (or "providential") is used. It's used at least 3 or 4 times in the last 2 books of the LCs.

This would explain why is the Creator is "not there", as a character, in the LCs. He's not there because he's been there the whole time — been there working (normatively) through natural causes, as opposed to miraculous ones, as is his wont.

Providence brings good from evil (the Mahdoubt marvels how such a thing can be). Providence always weaves the plans of the evildoer back into the tapestry of good. (Other than willing cooperation of the Free Being which can never be compelled,) God always gets what he wants; only the Free Being suffers loss.

It seems to me that this theme echos Tolkien's treatment of Illuvatar and Melkor: And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.

[aliantha]

And yet I've had readers tell me that they think Joseph is hawt.

But he was drawn that way, wasn't he? He kept managing to lose his shirt. And pants.

But he always finds them again! Eventually...

[aTOMiC]

Boy this thread went in an unexpected direction.

Still reading.

The Power That Preserves this weekend.

[Zarathustra]

I was about a 100 pages or so through AATE, when I was thinking, "gee this seems like Providence may well be an overarching theme of the LCs". And sho'nuff, a few chapters later, the word "providence" (or "providential") is used. It's used at least 3 or 4 times in the last 2 books of the LCs.

This would explain why is the Creator is "not there", as a character, in the LCs. He's not there because he's been there the whole time — been there working (normatively) through natural causes, as opposed to miraculous ones, as is his wont.

Providence brings good from evil (the Mahdoubt marvels how such a thing can be). Providence always weaves the plans of the evildoer back into the tapestry of good. (Other than willing cooperation of the Free Being which can never be compelled,) God always gets what he wants; only the Free Being suffers loss.

It seems to me that this theme echos Tolkien's treatment of Illuvatar and Melkor: And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.

No.

... any attempt at *meaning* which relies on some kind of external superstructure (God, Satan, the Creator, the Worm, whatever) for its substance misses the point (I mean the point of my story).

The Creator wasn't there because Donaldson got tired of people focusing too much on the Creator, missing the point of the story. That's also why he stopped answering Creator questions on the Gradual Interview. The point of the book (and of life) is to find a human meaning.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

No.

... any attempt at *meaning* which relies on some kind of external superstructure (God, Satan, the Creator, the Worm, whatever) for its substance misses the point (I mean the point of my story).

The Creator wasn't there because Donaldson got tired of people focusing too much on the Creator, missing the point of the story. That's also why he stopped answering Creator questions on the Gradual Interview. The point of the book (and of life) is to find a human meaning.

I think that you're misinterpreting, and thus missing and underestimating the subtlety of, SDR's elucidation of the perennial mysteries - an elucidation that he had to undertake in stages, at one point illumining one pole of the mystery, and treating of the other pole in another go-around. It was the approach that he used to comprehensively illumine them both, alternately affirming one and then the other, and holding them both in tension.

Human meaning and Divine meaning intersect, since Reality is all-of-a-piece. They intersect in orthodox Christian tradition as well as intersecting (though in an impersonal and obscurely indeterminate way) in the ancient mysteries of Man's Common Wisdom (i.e. the Sanatana Dharma).

Even discounting all of the other textual and thematic clues in the LCs, it certainly seems hard to account for the use "Providence" in any other way.

[wayfriend]

+JMJ+

Her mistake was in thinking that she could do evil to accomplish good. Cocksure and reckless, she spends the entire series making mistakes (on the main). That good comes about from them points toward the other pole of the mystery (which stands in contrast to SDR's earlier treatment of Free Will): Providence.

Now that's a pretty interesting take on the situation. I'd like to explore that. (And not to say 'you're wrong'.) IIUC, you seem to think that Linden had hubris, but was constantly rescued from it's logical result by something like divine intervention. Is that the essence of it?

Basically.

I was about a 100 pages or so through AATE, when I was thinking, "gee this seems like Providence may well be an overarching theme of the LCs". And sho'nuff, a few chapters later, the word "providence" (or "providential") is used. It's used at least 3 or 4 times in the last 2 books of the LCs.

This would explain why is the Creator is "not there", as a character, in the LCs. He's not there because he's been there the whole time — been there working (normatively) through natural causes, as opposed to miraculous ones, as is his wont.

Providence brings good from evil (the Mahdoubt marvels how such a thing can be). Providence always weaves the plans of the evildoer back into the tapestry of good. (Other than willing cooperation of the Free Being which can never be compelled,) God always gets what he wants; only the Free Being suffers loss.

It seems to me that this theme echos Tolkien's treatment of Illuvatar and Melkor: And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.

Providence I clearly see. And betimes some wonder is wrought to redeem us. But pridefulness is a harsh judgement of Linden (it would be of anyone). I think I would like to know [next] how you see arrogance in what she does. Certainly the Masters, I think, judged her so.

Also, I think if someone puts a +JMJ+ in all of their posts, Catholicism (? I'm guessing) is a factor for you. Is it permissible to discuss how religious theory plays into your interpretation of Linden?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Providence I clearly see. And betimes some wonder is wrought to redeem us. But pridefulness is a harsh judgement of Linden (it would be of anyone). I think I would like to know [next] how you see arrogance in what she does. Certainly the Masters, I think, judged her so.

Also, I think if someone puts a +JMJ+ in all of their posts, Catholicism (? I'm guessing) is a factor for you. Is it permissible to discuss how religious theory plays into your interpretation of Linden?

AFAICT, the problem with the Masters wasn't so much that they saw arrogance in Linden as that they didn't see it in themselves and couldn't see redemption coming through one who wasn't pure and humble (as they defined it).

I don't filter SDR through Christianity (except, at most, proleptically). He's simply not writing from that POV, just as Tolkien did not. They both write from the POV of the Sanatana Dharma, so that's how I read them.

[Vraith]

I think you have to be careful with providence---at least as it's often meant---
The quote actually shows why.
The wonder is wrought. Not granted, not destined, or any of the usual things.
It is MADE. And it is made by the participants...their work, their actions. In fact, the best resolution is achieved precisely by AVOIDING any hint of predestination, prophecy fulfillment, and Creator determination.

OTOH...it's fun seeing someone say Linden is "cocksure and reckless" when so many see her as weak, whiny, passive, and ineffectual.

[wayfriend]

I don't filter SDR through Christianity (except, at most, proleptically). He's simply not writing from that POV, just as Tolkien did not. They both write from the POV of the Sanatana Dharma, so that's how I read them.

Well, that's a bit outside my ken, except to understand Sanatana Dharma as 'cosmic principles'. But I was still hoping you could expound on the "cocksure and reckless" thing. I have heard people make the "reckless" criticism before, but not "arrogantly confident". I was wondering how you saw Linden that way.

P.S. I have made Linden a bit of a study. Knowing what opinions people have helps to know what issues need to be explored.

The wonder is wrought. Not granted, not destined, or any of the usual things.
It is MADE.

Indeed. Like luck, providence is made. It's the intersection of opportunity and preparedness. Although Donaldson's angle is more like saying, if you work hard enough, luck can carry you the rest of the way.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

But I was still hoping you could expound on the "cocksure and reckless" thing. I have heard people make the "reckless" criticism before, but not "arrogantly confident". I was wondering how you saw Linden that way.

P.S. I have made Linden a bit of a study. Knowing what opinions people have helps to know what issues need to be explored.

I dunno specifically, I suppose. It's just a general impression. For most of the arc, she seemed ready to match power for power, heedless of the consequences. She bluffs her way with the Masters and others, at times. Her use of Anele to achieve her ends. The blackness of her fire. Her willingness to do these things, convinced that she's monergistically determining her (and the Land's) future, shows this cocksurety.

Of course, there's more subtlety to her than that. Her internal dialogue finds her questioning her motives and means, for example So, I'm certainly not trying to reduce her complexity as a character to a simplistic "reckless and cocksure". Doing so would not do justice to her character and SDR's storytelling chops.

[wayfriend]

I dunno specifically, I suppose. It's just a general impression. For most of the arc, she seemed ready to match power for power, heedless of the consequences. She bluffs her way with the Masters and others, at times. Her use of Anele to achieve her ends. The blackness of her fire. Her willingness to do these things, convinced that she's monergistically determining her (and the Land's) future, shows this cocksurety.

Interesting that you mention the black fire. As near as I can tell, her fire is tainted for trying to penetrate Jeremiah's mind, which she later realized was nothing less than possession, and so regretted the attempt. But it's unclear to me as yet what the black fire represents. I suppose arrogance is as good a notion as any.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I dunno specifically, I suppose. It's just a general impression. For most of the arc, she seemed ready to match power for power, heedless of the consequences. She bluffs her way with the Masters and others, at times. Her use of Anele to achieve her ends. The blackness of her fire. Her willingness to do these things, convinced that she's monergistically determining her (and the Land's) future, shows this cocksurety.

Interesting that you mention the black fire. As near as I can tell, her fire is tainted for trying to penetrate Jeremiah's mind, which she later realized was nothing less than possession, and so regretted the attempt. But it's unclear to me as yet what the black fire represents. I suppose arrogance is as good a notion as any.

I'm glad that works out for you to a certain degree. At the very least, it could be a springboard for your further insights.

I'm still (largely unconsciously) processing the LCs. I imagine that more connections will pop into my mind as I mull it over in the coming months. A reread at some point will undoubtedly help in that, as well.