Kevin's Watch

Matrixman wrote:... Members like me are just amateur hacks, not university graduates or professors of literature...

Morgan: Dr. Donaldson,

I have just begun "Runes of the Earth" and I am enjoying it a great deal thus far. However, in reading your "What Has Gone Before" introduction, a few questions came to mind regarding High Lord Elena. It mentions that Covenant comes to realize that Elena is not entirely sane, and that eventually, this imbalance, in conjunction with his essential betrayal, lead to her downfall.

My two questions are as follows:

1.) In many ways, Elena is an example of an Aristotlean tragic character -- larger than life and noble, but with a fundamental flaw that leads to her demise. We even have elements of an Elektra complex in her portrayal. What caused this flaw? Was her insanity the result of her upbringing, or rather the result of a more "epic" weakness resulting from the inherent violence/sin of her creation? Epic nature versus fundamental nurture?

2.) How is it that the other Lords, including Mhoram who was seer and oracle, had no indication of her insanity? Why did even mind melds between the counsel fail to indicate her flaw? A mutual decision was made that she possessed the qualities necessary to face the challenges of the upcoming war; how could they have been so wrong?

Thank you for your books and your time. Your work is thought-provoking and very entertaining.

1) In a fantasy novel of this kind (explicitly epic in both theme and character), the answer would almost have to be: "epic nature." Elena was created to be who she became by the violence of her father and the disturbance of her mother (*not,* in this case, her mother's disturbed behavior, but rather her mother's disturbed personality). This fits the themes of the story. But it also fits the model of Covenant's Unbelief. If the Land is being invented by some aspect of his mind, then Elena's character could *only* have been formed by the consequences of his actions: nurture doesn't enter the picture.

2) The Lords who selected Elena to lead them were not "so wrong." This is a novel about paradox, remember. Elena was the perfect choice in the same sense that Covenant was the perfect choice. So she was discernibly unbalanced. So what? So was he. The other Lords--especially Mhoram--knew that she would (to borrow a phrase) "save or damn" the Land; and they chose to believe that she would save it, just as they chose to believe that Covenant would. None of them existed on the knife-edge of possibility in the same way that Elena--and Covenant--did. And they could so easily have been validated by the outcome, if she had simply made a different decision at the moment when she tasted the EarthBlood. Only characters with epic flaws are capable of epic victories. So I would argue that the issue isn't that the other Lords "had no indication of her insanity": they simply didn't think in those terms. They didn't ask, "Is she sane?" but rather, "Is she capable?" And in those terms, they made the best possible choice.

(02/05/2005)

JemCheeta wrote:Well... I Wouldnt say the BEST possible choice...

Matrixman wrote:As for why there are no "literary" discussions of his works...if you mean professional-level, scholarly analysis, ...

Denis Delworth: After years of shouting about the number of books you have sold in europe, how can you justify the paucity of personal appearances over here?
It's wonderful for us over here to sit and read about these Fests where you and your fans turn out for a celebration for what you have done.

When are we in Europe going to get some proportionate response to the books we buy?

Or are you going to submit to the steriotypical belief that nobody outside the Dollar dictatorship matters?

Still a fan, but so disappointed.

D Delworth.


*Who* has been "shouting about the number of books have sold in Europe"? Not I.

Who makes decisions about where and why authors do public appearances? Not I.

Who believes that the policies and parochialism of US publishing companies (the "Dollar dictatorship") sheds any light at all on the personal beliefs and desires of individual authors? Not I.

I can't say that I understand your disappointment. If William Shakespeare were doing a signing across the street from me right now, I probably wouldn't go. Wouldn't want to stand in line. And it's the work that interests me, not the person. But still: don't you think it might be a bit churlish to blame *me* for your disappointment?

(03/06/2005)

That's tellin 'em Mr. D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doug Alford: It's been awhile since I read the last lines of White Gold Wielder, and my memory is something less than vast. So forgive me if I am asking a question that would be made obvious by a close reading of the Second Chronicles. That said...

I am unclear on the difference between the Law of Life and the Law of Death. What are the strictures of each, and the implications of their breaking?

Well, putting it crudely: the Law of Death prevents the dead from intruding on or affecting the living (manifesting as ghosts, visible spirits, etc.); the Law of Life prevents the dead from *becoming* the living (re-entering, re-animating, and re-ensouling their dead bodies so that they can literally pick up their lives where they left off). Together the two Laws preserve the necessary boundary between life and death; but they function sequentially. Still crudely: when you die, first your spirit leaves your body, then it leaves knowable reality. So in reverse, damaging the Law of Death allows your spirit to re-enter knowable reality, and then damaging the Law of Life allows your spirit to resume life in your natural body.

Matrixman wrote:Wayfriend kindly explained it to me in the Dissecting forum. And now it's nice to see an explanation from SRD.

SRD wrote:btw, I'm sorry it took me so long to supply this information. I'm over 240 questions behind on the GI.

(03/13/2005)