Kevin's Watch

Vinny F: Stephen,

Hi Stephen,

My question is regarding the Theomach in Fatal Revenant. Was it your intent that the Theomach was always ak-Haru Kenaustin Ardenol, or was this one of the steps he needed to take to keep the sequence of Time intact? Either way the story works, just curious.

The way I see it, the Theomach (in every consistent time-line <rueful smile>) was always aiming to become the Guardian of the One Tree. Linden's imposed appearance facilitated a (small) portion of the quest he had already undertaken for himself. After all, how else can an ordinary mortal (physically, at least, the Insequent are ordinary mortals) hope to humiliate--or even insult--the Elohim?

(02/29/2008)

Robert Murnick: Dear Sir,

Thank you for your kind note to my last posting. I'll try not to get carried away again. I loved FR and look forward to the next book. I have a question about Roger. Why (and when) did you decide to make him an evil character? In the earlier series', Roger is a baby (innocent and, to be blunt, nearly inconsequential). Now he's a grown-up bastard (literal sense), influenced by Foul and perhaps by circumstances we don't know about (apart from growing up fatherless). God, I hate him (which, hopefully, was your intent). But he's also a *real* person, like Linden, Covenant and Hile Troy. In the beginning of TROTE, we only see him as someone who may be Foul's puppet (which I have no trouble buying). But in FR, we see under his skin some, and he's so incredibly resentful that he's willing to go to great lengths to provoke the destruction of the great beauty that is The Land (in order to "become a god"). So I infer he's learned to hate his father (maybe we'll learn more about that later), and has some knowledge of his father's history in the Land. (Is this a reversal of the Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader archetype?) Did you ever consider him in a non-evil role?

Being a literal bastard myself, I selfishly want to see him as more real and have more sympathy for him. I certainly don't hate my real father (whoever he was) like Roger does. Any hope for this?

Thoughts about the end of FR - "Hmmmmm. Thomas Covenant is alive again. I have to guess that he's here to stay for a while - why would Donaldson ressurrect him if only to conceal him again shortly thereafter....wonder what his conflict is going to be....formerly all-powerful master of Time now reduced to human form....might his leprosy return?"

I can't address much of this. But you might try thinking of Roger as his father's doppleganger. Roger has inherited his mother's legacy of fear (and self-abhorrence) rather than his father's (learned) legacy of courage. In that, Roger is rather like Linden--without the benefit of Covenant's intervention; without spending crucial time in the company of characters who are motivated by love rather than by fear. You could say that he just doesn't know any better. Fear, I think, is a natural and inevitable part of the human condition. But being ruled by fear is a choice. And it's unfortunately true that choices can be very hard to see or understand if people haven't been taught that those choices exist; if people lack role models for making those choices. I knew as soon as Joan decided to abandon Covenant that Roger would follow his mother's example. It's the only one he's had.

I don't want to say much more on the subject. But I'm confident that Roger has NO IDEA he's being ruled by fear. He isn't aware of the choice.

(03/05/2008)

Bran Pendragon wrote:Roger isn't a literal bastard, surely.

dlbpharmd wrote:

Bran Pendragon wrote:Roger isn't a literal bastard, surely.

I saw that also, and said "huh?"

In the Gradual Interview, Donaldson wrote:Pier Giorgio (Xar): Dear Steve,
After reading FR and the questions you have been asked about it, I find that there is one question regarding the topic of the Theomach that I haven't been able to answer satisfactorily. I realize this may enter RAFO territory, in which case at least I'll know I was right in asking in the first place! <grin>

Anyway, the Theomach's goal was to supplant the previous Guardian of the One Tree all along. Supposedly all he did - attaching himself to Berek, teaching him about Earthpower, and so on - was done so as to further his purpose, in order for Berek to reach the One Tree and for the Theomach to fulfill his personal quest. He didn't leave anything to chance, even going so far as to hide his appearance so that Linden would not recognize him when she saw him. Furthermore, we know that each Insequent has a particular interest which he or she focuses on, and that is reflected in their abilities - therefore, one could argue that the Theomach's mastery over time was a tool for him to reach the time and place where he should become the Guardian. He likely studied the Guardian's history as much as he could, too.

So now the question that comes to mind is, why? To be more specific: why did he want to become THAT Guardian (going back to the past and so on) and not, say, simply replace Brinn in the "present" time? But more importantly, why did he want to become a Guardian in the first place? Depending on whether the Theomach's "present" is the same as Linden's or the same as Berek's, there could be additional motivations, but what was his primary reason for doing so? The knowledge he would achieve as a Guardian? Keeping the Tree out of Elohim hands? Ensuring that Berek got the Staff of Law (in which case one could argue that becoming the Guardian was a byproduct of this)? Or was there another goal?

The reason why I ask is because the Guardian strikes me as a static creature - he doesn't involve himself in the affairs of the world, doesn't even leave the Isle, and for all his power, he never acts outside of protecting the One Tree (that we know of). Striving so hard and learning so much lore just to stand guard to the One Tree for thousands of years without additional, deeper reasons for doing so seems to me to be a rather strange goal for anyone (even the Haruchai's reason for challenging the Guardian was not just to become him, but to earn the honor of being the paragon of "Haruchai-hood", so to speak). I hope I managed to explain the question satisfactorily <grin>.

• Sorry. No spoiler here. <grin> (Although I’m going to post this under “spoilers,” just to be on the safe side.) The Theomach is gone from the story, so it's at least theoretically safe to talk about him.
  
  In regard to your question(s), the point that seems most important to me is: the Theomach did NOT go back in time; certainly not to replace a specific Guardian. When Linden encounters him, he is occupying his natural place in his own history, as well as in the history of the Insequent, the Land, and the Earth. As for why: did I not mention often enough that the Insequent have an old and bitter grudge against the Elohim? Many of the Insequent are driven by a desire to prove themselves against the Elohim; to exceed by skill and knowledge what the Elohim get merely by existing. Simply defeating and replacing an Elohim is the greatest feat any Insequent has ever accomplished, no matter how static the role of the Guardian may appear in retrospect.
  
  (03/19/2008)

wayfriend wrote:I learned so much I am more powerful than an Elohim!!!

But it's not sufficient in my mind.

wayfriend wrote:Oh, I think we will see them. I think SRD is a sly dog in the GI - he definitely says true but misleading things. We may not see the Theomach, but after he was absorbed into the Elohim, he's not the Theomach any longer, and we may see this new guy. Probably will. I cannot think how we can resolve the whole Esmer thing without doing so. And also, why bring it up if we're not going there?