Kevin's Watch

+JMJ+

Vraith wrote:Here is a fun thing to think on, maybe, since you used the Satan/Grendel, since there is a whole thread on Christian comparison:
Why is that "Biblical" connection thing even part of the "Epic" definition...especially in/about/for the works we're talking about?
Because honestly how much of the Bible is "Epic?"
Really, hardly any of it is.

Regardless of what one thinks of the historicity of the Bible, the Epic doesn't purport to be strictly historical (or perhaps, put another way, doesn't purport to be authentically personal). The Epic is a narrative typifying the "working out" of the religious quest: the victory over sin and death.

This is why the Epic recapitulates and synthesizes all the types of writings found in the Bible (poetic, wisdom, ritual, moral, historical, genealogical, etc.)

I would agree with most of that, but I would quibble with some. An "epic" fantasy would (as has been said) address "the highest and most vital themes" in "the language of religion". So a similarity to what is found in the Bible would follow - since it, in a parallel but different way, addresses the same things, and in the same kind language.

But does an "epic" require "victory over sin and death"? That's debatable. I grant that the number of "highest and most vital themes" is probably small, and so any two epic works might naturally cover the same ones. But "victory over sin and death" is only one of them, and I wouldn't say it's a required one.

I would say that the Chronicles themselves fails by your yardstick.

Then again, I would also say that, to anyone whom these things are very important, they could probably find them in the Chronicles. Who am I to limit what people can find?

Is the bible "epic"? I would say yes. Is it "an epic fantasy?" -- Not going there. (Donaldson implies that it is, but he may not have intended to.)

+JMJ+

wayfriend wrote:I would say that the Chronicles themselves fails by your yardstick.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. (Does not the What Has Gone Before in TOT state that TC fought "a bitter battle against sin and madness"?)

Granted, there's no ultimate victory over sin and death, but that's by definition. Hemmed in by the imperfection (incompleteness) of the Cosmic Wheel, there can be no more than provisional victories. The limitations of the Cosmos, the circles of birth and death and rebirth, prevent anything more.

But these provisional victories are certainly achieved in the course of the Epic (and thus, imperfectly participate in, or anticipate, a nebulously obscure Final Victory). It is the quest, the striving, the desire for this obscure destination which defines the Epic.

This is why, on another thread, I said that I don't filter SRD, Tolkien, et al through Christianity (excepting in, at most, a proleptic manner), but rather, through the Sanatana Dharma (semina Verbi).

Haha, the "What Has gone Before" sections are notoriously inaccurate.

(I think there's a thread somewhere listing all the wrong stuff in them.)

(Not that what you said is necessarily wrong, just saying... )

--A

Vraith wrote:...Here is a fun thing to think on, maybe, since you used the Satan/Grendel, since there is a whole thread on Christian comparison:
Why is that "Biblical" connection thing even part of the "Epic" definition...especially in/about/for the works we're talking about?...

I've been pondering this a bit and I think that it's not the comparison with the Bible that is important, but rather the comparison with Christianity. The two epic fantasy stories that stand out for me, LOTR and TCTC, do so because they have a 'Christlike' figure at their centre. There may be something in a monotheistic religion (no doubt also related to other social developments) that parallels or activates a previously untapped capacity in humanity. For me, there is something 'epic' in the intensity of this experience (which, in the case of TCTC, then leads on to the different and equally intense experience of existentialism).

u.

[EDIT: to fix typo]

Wosbald wrote:

wayfriend wrote:I would say that the Chronicles themselves fails by your yardstick.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. (Does not the What Has Gone Before in TOT state that TC fought "a bitter battle against sin and madness"?)

I was thinking about statements like "the problem with innocence is that it's impotent" and "guilt is power". In the Chronicles, sin isn't something you defeat, it's something you accommodate, and it can even empower you.

Wosbald wrote:Granted, there's no ultimate victory over sin and death, but that's by definition.

Oh. Well, okay then. I misunderstood.

After reading the Lord Foul Review posted by Avatar, I am seeing how the [Calvinist?] notion that everyone is riddled with sin pervades the Chronicles. [I don't know Calvinist from Chauvinist.] But Donaldson's story doesn't depict a struggle to cleanse oneself of sin, but rather to become whole (reintegrate) by accepting sin.

Nor is there any heaven, only the peace that you make for yourself through acceptance, and the strength for efficacy that this provides you.

ussusimiel wrote:

Vraith wrote:...Here is a fun thing to think on, maybe, since you used the Satan/Grendel, since there is a whole thread on Christian comparison:
Why is that "Biblical" connection thing even part of the "Epic" definition...especially in/about/for the works we're talking about?...

I've been pondering this a bit and I think that it's not the comparison with the Bible that is important, but rather the comparison with Christianity. For me the two epic fantasy stories that stand out for me, LOTR and TCTC, do so because they have a 'Christlike' figure at their centre. There may be something in a monotheistic religion (no doubt also related to other social developments) that parallels or activates a previously untapped capacity in humanity. For me, there is something 'epic' in the intensity of this experience (which, in the case of TCTC, then leads on to the different and equally intense experience of existentialism).

u.

I think something in the fantasy genre is epic when it deals with gods or god-like beings, either their meddling or killing them or both. Christianity is a jumping off point because it all ready has a lot of the arch-types to be used: rebellion, divine genocide, etc. Of course, it does not have to be Christianity, but to Western writers it's a ready resource.

+JMJ+

wayfriend wrote:

Wosbald wrote:

wayfriend wrote:I would say that the Chronicles themselves fails by your yardstick.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. (Does not the What Has Gone Before in TOT state that TC fought "a bitter battle against sin and madness"?)

I was thinking about statements like "the problem with innocence is that it's impotent" and "guilt is power". In the Chronicles, sin isn't something you defeat, it's something you accommodate, and it can even empower you.

Wosbald wrote:Granted, there's no ultimate victory over sin and death, but that's by definition.

Oh. Well, okay then. I misunderstood.

After reading the Lord Foul Review posted by Avatar, I am seeing how the [Calvinist?] notion that everyone is riddled with sin pervades the Chronicles. [I don't know Calvinist from Chauvinist.] But Donaldson's story doesn't depict a struggle to cleanse oneself of sin, but rather to become whole (reintegrate) by accepting sin.

Nor is there any heaven, only the peace that you make for yourself through acceptance, and the strength for efficacy that this provides you.

I could probably quibble with a lot of this, but methinks it would be largely semantics, due to (from what I gather from the arc of your posts) is your remoteness from many of the technical peculiarities and dogmatic imperatives of Catholic tradition and the historical particularities of heretical deviations.

As well, since the demands of the Dharma, in regard to which it seems to me that SRD is basically orthodox, are consequently, well-served in his stories, I'm sure that you and I could probably end up hammering out a lot of common ground, but 'twould likely be a needlessly arduous discussion within a forum format. So, yeah, I think I see what you're saying and probably agree, at least on the main.

Ok, I'll say it now and maybe Wosbald will correct me if I'm wrong: I do not think the Chronicles are Calvinist. I believe the review conflates Calvinism with Protestantism. Particularly since Calvinist have this sort of "predestined to be saved/redeemed by Grace, not through merit but the capricious will of God". I use "capricious" here to denote that God chooses who is saved by some reasoning unknown to us, we would only know it is not through our value as good people and not everyone is chosen to be saved.

That does not seem to jive with the Chronicles. Any redemption Covenant achieves is earned by Covenant. He's given the choice, the closest we get to the action of a Calvinist God is that the Creator chooses Covenant to "save or damn" the Land, but the choice is specifically given. The Creator pretty much says that choice is a pre-requisite for the Land to have any hope of being saved.

+JMJ+

Orlion wrote:Ok, I'll say it now and maybe Wosbald will correct me if I'm wrong: I do not think the Chronicles are Calvinist.

I think that the Chrons are mentioned in the same breath as Calvinism simply because they are a rejection of Calvinism. Donaldson contra Calvin.

ussusimiel wrote:

Vraith wrote:...Here is a fun thing to think on, maybe, since you used the Satan/Grendel, since there is a whole thread on Christian comparison:
Why is that "Biblical" connection thing even part of the "Epic" definition...especially in/about/for the works we're talking about?...

I've been pondering this a bit and I think that it's not the comparison with the Bible that is important, but rather the comparison with Christianity.

The two epic fantasy stories that stand out for me, LOTR and TCTC, do so because they have a 'Christlike' figure at their centre.

On the first...well, it's a bit of both. There are borrowed [and re-shaped] formal/structural things, and abstract/philosophical [and re-made] things.
Christianity has some pretty epic points to make---but many, many more small lessons on a good life/attitude. It has some epic stories, like the flood,---mostly in the old testament, and mostly borrowed from other places---but more details and instructions for the common/everyday.

But the direction I meant might be cool to explore is part of the second===
An epic isn't/shouldn't be called an epic because it is like the Bible [or other religious text] or Christianity [or other religion]. The epic doesn't resemble them. THEY resemble the Epic.
I think we've talked about the "Christlike" before---and I still think [probably said before] that "Likeness" is only meaningful/valuable/illuminating to the extent that it shows [in TC's case] the DIFFERENCES. I don't think anything---except perhaps a list of adjectives---results from the things that are the same. The meaning/thematic/non-cliche is in what opposes.

Seriously---without trying to be too snarky here, not too offensive to believers or analyzers who love biblical parallels/allusion---I suspect [though I've only gone partway down the path] if you replace TC's attributes with Christ's, Lord Foul would have won.
And it wouldn't have taken ten books to do so.
[[[if you included Christ's literal Son of God attribute, it would practically be flash fiction: walking, signs, old man, car near miss, summoning breaks the Arch, the end.]]]
There are some things from the Indian...I'm not sure the Buddha would have done much better---though there's a possibility he would have, it would have been a completely different kind of story.

Orlion wrote:Ok, I'll say it now and maybe Wosbald will correct me if I'm wrong: I do not think the Chronicles are Calvinist. I believe the review conflates Calvinism with Protestantism. Particularly since Calvinist have this sort of "predestined to be saved/redeemed by Grace, not through merit but the capricious will of God". I use "capricious" here to denote that God chooses who is saved by some reasoning unknown to us, we would only know it is not through our value as good people and not everyone is chosen to be saved.

That does not seem to jive with the Chronicles. Any redemption Covenant achieves is earned by Covenant. He's given the choice, the closest we get to the action of a Calvinist God is that the Creator chooses Covenant to "save or damn" the Land, but the choice is specifically given. The Creator pretty much says that choice is a pre-requisite for the Land to have any hope of being saved.

I've been struggling with this assertion by the reviewer, and I think Orlion eloquently expressed what I've been groping with. I would add that SRD rejected his Presbyterian upbringing by his fundamentalist parents, so I have great difficulty believing he would consciously (or subconsciously) insert Calvinist beliefs into Covenant. We certainly have much evidence pointing to a strong Biblical influence in the author, but Calvinist? I don't think so.

I learn. Thanks, guys.