The Christian Comparison Cont.

A place to discuss the books in the FC and SC. *Please Note* No LC spoilers allowed in this forum. Do so in the forum below.

Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch

User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

I won't double-post this time. I'll try and hold the paradox :lol:
Vraith wrote:to choose to live would negate who he had become/the choices that he made.
Vraith wrote:he who has grown to believe choice is essential will be doomed to living on without ever making an important choice again.
Thanks, Vraith, that is consistent and fits perfectly. I have one more question in this vein. Again it's probably more plot and context driven, but what is the significance, existentially, of the transformation that TC undergoes after his death?

One of the things that has occurred to me is that the metaphysical structure of the universe where the world of the Land exists is closer to that of a religious worldview than an existentialist worldview. This may be why it is so easy to make religious associations in relation to TCTC that aren't actually valid. The structure doesn't contradict at a feeling level but on closer inspection it doesn't hold up, as you and Zarathustra have so concisely shown.


Linna Heartlistener wrote:
(Interestingly, I often see little difference between the actions of an authentic existentialist and a good Christian Laughing )
:biggrin: If I hadn't seen the stuff Z writes, I might not have considered this a positive. :lol: (I keep finding that I identify with (some of) the same darn things this guy cares about and sees as worth fighting for.) Also, I note your choice of adjectives, u. It really narrows down the definition of what you're talking about.
I'd consider it a waste of time talking to insincere philosophers and hypocritical Christians. So far, I haven't met any on the Watch. I have a feeling that people of integrity in both camps have a huge part to play in that :Hail:

u.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10623
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time
Been thanked: 3 times

Post by Vraith »

ussusimiel wrote: Thanks, Vraith, that is consistent and fits perfectly. I have one more question in this vein. Again it's probably more plot and context driven, but what is the significance, existentially, of the transformation that TC undergoes after his death?

One of the things that has occurred to me is that the metaphysical structure of the universe where the world of the Land exists is closer to that of a religious worldview than an existentialist worldview. This may be why it is so easy to make religious associations in relation to TCTC that aren't actually valid. The structure doesn't contradict at a feeling level but on closer inspection it doesn't hold up, as you and Zarathustra have so concisely shown.
Ok...[revving up the motors]...there is no way to answer this without interpretations/viewpoints/stances that many won't agree with...and may in fact be "wrong," in some ways...though I obviously don't think so, or I wouldn't say it. I also can't do it without, probably, but we'll see, being long-winded, and repeating stuff I've posted elsewhere at least in part.
The appearance of "religiosity" is because the conflicts...almost every single one...are conflicts which religion has always addressed. Religion actually exists [RL] in part because of these kinds of conflicts...which, btw and importantly, are existential conflicts. The existential [both specifically philosophically, and the more general application] does not oppose the motivation/inquiry of the religious...they have the same source and goal. [in essence, for the actual seeker, not the manipulator/power hungry or groveler/whiner] It opposes the Solutions...and Metaphyic/Absolute Truth they unjustifiably claim. Now we're at the Land. The Land seems more religious because they have direct, demonstrable, pragmatic, effective senses/powers/insight into things the real world doesn't. Much of what we argue about concerning good/evil, right/wrong, beautiful/ugly, on and on, they simply do not have to argue about...it is THERE, present from birth, obvious, requires no explanation...so, odd as it seems, they don't NEED a God/Devil...they don't need metaphysics at all. They ARE existential, because truth/meaning/beauty is right there. And don't be fooled by the existence of afterlife/ghosts...Even they are not Eternal/Metaphysical in our terms. They grow, they feel, can love and suffer and disagree, they can learn, can change, and had pretty much ZERO effective/affective ability until Laws were broken...and are STILL within the Arch, not with the Creator. Perfect.
Except for one thing...Lord Foul..and now we're at my Grand interpretation. The REAL battle here is between the Ideal/Metaphysical/Eternal and the material/physical/mortal, but not in themselves, as if they were warring nations...they BOTH have their place/purpose/meaning. And the Arch is the dividing line between them. The battle is because the one...Metaphysical/Eternal...Lord Foul...has been imposed on the other, the World. He is on the wrong side of the border. And the two things are like matter/anti-matter. They cannot exist in the same space...period. The result is annihilation if they can't be sorted out/separated. If it weren't for the nature of the Arch, the order/distinctions/strictures it imposes, it would have happened instantly. [And from the Creator/Metaphysical/Eternal realms view, it probably DOES happen in an eyeblink.]
Now, TC's transformation: this is because the Arch is a "thing," an"object" in a way. It simply cannot survive/adapt to the intentional, intelligent assault upon its structure that LF engages in...I think even if LF weren't "Evil," his mere presence on the wrong side would eat away at the Arch. Remember, it is an alloy. It has Metaphysical as well as Material components. The Metaphysical part is set, stable, and safe cuz the Creator/Timeless realm exists...but the Material needs to change...it needs a mind, it needs to grow, heal, defend itself. And that's what TC is/becomes/always already was. He is made of stuff that is neither Metaphysical, nor the same stuff of the Land. He can make choices that are fundamentally inconceivable by people born to the World because he, in himself, is both more distant AND more intimate with conflicting things like Love/Despite. A parallel/illustration...TC in our world has a certain awareness/concept of objects because they can hurt him and he won't feel it. The ordinary person will never understand that completely...because it doesn't require deep thought/awareness to track/analyze it. It just happens, it hurts, we put a bandaid on it, it heals...no big deal.
Larger implication/meaning: When people like Mhoram say things like [paraphrase] "Despite can't win when the intentions are that good," it's because in the Land the intentions [and the understanding/adaptation of others] has real force/power. In TC's home world, [and ours] things like that happen all the time.
I'll stop...there are points I should have explicated more completely, but I'm getting off track from what you asked, and I'm semi-wary of huge posts.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

Thanks Vraith for the heroic post.

I understand your wariness (weariness :lol: ) of long posts. There is a risk that posting becomes arduous rather than pleasurable. To save yourself having to repeat stuff, if you were able to direct me to the relevant threads where you have posted on similar themes I'd go and check them out.

I found your post enlightening with many interesting concepts and observations that are new to me. I will need to digest it before I respond (probably in another post).

From your's and others' posts (Zarathustra and Linna Heartlistener) it is obvious where you stand. Just in case it is not already obvious I would like to make my own position clear.

In common with most of the people who contribute to the life of the Watch I am a seeker. I try to appreciate the positive aspects of the existentialist and religious worldviews (along with all other honestly held positions). I admire the existentialist for their intellectually rigorous realism and the religious person for their heartfelt idealism.

What I look for in any person, regardless of their system of thought or belief, is integrity. This is a unifying element for me. I believe that growth and transformation are the inevitable consequence of integrity. This is why I have focused on the transformation of TC at the end of the 2nd Chrons. For me this symbolically represents the real transformations that any person of integrity undergoes during their lifetime. In my opinion, this is an experience that unites people regardless of their different orientations to life.

Thanks to the integrity of the people involved this discussion is helping me grow in understanding.

u.
User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

Finally getting around to responding to Vraith's mega-post. (Tried a few times before but found I still had some digesting to do).

I now understand better, thanks to Vraith, how the nature of life in the Land is essentially existential and how many of the religious concerns that we have do not arise. This puts a totally different perspective on where Covenant ends up at the end of the 2nd Chrons and makes Christian comparisons largely irrelevant (to me, in any case), without making the Chrons any less interesting.

Some questions occur about the metaphysical structure of the universe of the Land. Do the people of the Land have souls? If not then what is their relationship to the Creator (what is the Creator, for that matter?) Where do souls from the Land go if the Arch of Time is broken? What is the situation with Covenant (and his soul)?

(Each question engenders futher questions. Always a good sign for the searcher :lol: )

u.
User avatar
shadowbinding shoe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:33 am

Post by shadowbinding shoe »

Great post Vraith. You brought up many interesting ideas there. It gave me a new perspective on it.

I wanted to add a different angle concerning Covenant's end in the second chronicles. For me Covenant's transformation at the end wasn't the important part. The important thing was how Covenant grew and matured enough to relinquish his power and heroic role during this chronicle. The issue is brought to a head during the Elohimfest. Covenant is not fit to save the Land, Linden is. Covenant tries to deny this but even he realizes it's true. The man in the ochre robes speaks to her, she and not him has the health sense, his quest for the one tree only brings sorrow and destruction.

And yet Covenant can't accept this idea. He feels that giving up his personal power and heroic role would rob him of his meaning. His attempt to be a guide at the start of the Wounded Land peters out pretty quickly. Covenant can't take second place. Many of the problems that develop in the series (like the divisions among the company) grow from that.

Covenant manages to change into this role to some extent. He steps aside from the fight against the Arguleh and the Clave and of course doesn't actively fight Foul at the end. On the other hand he doesn't relinquish his power either. You will say that Linden was not capable of handling the things he had to face but that's probably because he abandoned his intended role as a guide to her. At the end of the second chronicle he only partially managed to complete this character growth.

He died because that was the only way he could give up his power freely and wholeheartedly. When he did that, when he showed he was mature and selfless enough to give up his personal power and his love for the greater good, he was properly rewarded by the Land and given a new power and meaning.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19842
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

shadowbinding shoe wrote: He died because that was the only way he could give up his power freely and wholeheartedly. When he did that, when he showed he was mature and selfless enough to give up his personal power and his love for the greater good, he was properly rewarded by the Land and given a new power and meaning.
I think he died because he got stabbed in the chest. His death (as it is for all of us) was inevitable. He spends most of the first 2 Chrons resisting that, and then stops resisting. He surrenders his power in the end because he accepts his mortality, and is no longer letting his mortality be an issue which can be used against him to rob him of his humanity.

And ... back to the topic at hand ... he escapes the negative judgements of Christianity--i.e. that this world is Fallen and that death/disease/pain are somehow "proof" that it's not supposed to be this way--by accepting that this is his destiny. He doesn't choose to die, he accepts it. He even accepts the venom by allowing the Banefire to meld him into an amalgamation of venom/white gold. So he's accepting not only his mortality, but his "evil" nature. He is only "purified" at the end by surrendering to his own end, surrendering to his own inner Despiser. Thus, he crafts a solution to the problem of evil: accept it, stop fighting it, and get beyond it.

In this context, religion can be viewed as a reaction to mortality, a general unwillingness to accept mortality, an attitude which creates Evil by causing us to devalue the real world in which we live, in favor of a fictional Heaven where we imagine things like death don't exist. It causes us to deny the world as natural because we can't accept that a place where people suffer and die was ever meant to exist ... at least not like this. So we invent stories to describe how it was before The Fall, a kind of Eden or Utopia (which never existed). And we look at death/disease as proof of sin. We are unworthy. We make ourselves and our world imperfect, something worthy of punishment, merely becuase we can't accept it the way it is. But Donaldson repeatedly shows us in the 2nd Chrons that nothing can be perfect, it must have an imperfection in order to have any power or worth. I believe we get an explicit verbalization of this lesson first with Kasreyn of the Gyre, but we shouldn't dismiss it merely because he was a "bad guy." It becomes the lesson Covenant embodied by his victory in the Banefire, as well as an elucidating truth of the White Gold itself. "Perfection" is impotence, powerlessness, death. Imperfection is life and power. It is the real world, which religion denies.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
User avatar
Ananda
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:23 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Ananda »

Zarathustra wrote:
shadowbinding shoe wrote: He died because that was the only way he could give up his power freely and wholeheartedly. When he did that, when he showed he was mature and selfless enough to give up his personal power and his love for the greater good, he was properly rewarded by the Land and given a new power and meaning.
I think he died because he got stabbed in the chest. His death (as it is for all of us) was inevitable. He spends most of the first 2 Chrons resisting that, and then stops resisting. He surrenders his power in the end because he accepts his mortality, and is no longer letting his mortality be an issue which can be used against him to rob him of his humanity.

And ... back to the topic at hand ... he escapes the negative judgements of Christianity--i.e. that this world is Fallen and that death/disease/pain are somehow "proof" that it's not supposed to be this way--by accepting that this is his destiny. He doesn't choose to die, he accepts it. He even accepts the venom by allowing the Banefire to meld him into an amalgamation of venom/white gold. So he's accepting not only his mortality, but his "evil" nature. He is only "purified" at the end by surrendering to his own end, surrendering to his own inner Despiser. Thus, he crafts a solution to the problem of evil: accept it, stop fighting it, and get beyond it.

In this context, religion can be viewed as a reaction to mortality, a general unwillingness to accept mortality, an attitude which creates Evil by causing us to devalue the real world in which we live, in favor of a fictional Heaven where we imagine things like death don't exist. It causes us to deny the world as natural because we can't accept that a place where people suffer and die was ever meant to exist ... at least not like this. So we invent stories to describe how it was before The Fall, a kind of Eden or Utopia (which never existed). And we look at death/disease as proof of sin. We are unworthy. We make ourselves and our world imperfect, something worthy of punishment, merely becuase we can't accept it the way it is. But Donaldson repeatedly shows us in the 2nd Chrons that nothing can be perfect, it must have an imperfection in order to have any power or worth. I believe we get an explicit verbalization of this lesson first with Kasreyn of the Gyre, but we shouldn't dismiss it merely because he was a "bad guy." It becomes the lesson Covenant embodied by his victory in the Banefire, as well as an elucidating truth of the White Gold itself. "Perfection" is impotence, powerlessness, death. Imperfection is life and power. It is the real world, which religion denies.
Well said, Zahu. :goodpost:
Monsters, they eat
Your kind of meat
And they're moving as far as they can
And as fast as they can
User avatar
Linna Heartbooger
Are you not a sine qua non for a redemption?
Posts: 3896
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:17 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Linna Heartbooger »

Vraith wrote:
Linna Heartlistener wrote:
  • the need of sacrifice to effect good in the Land,
    the depiction of a world where actions have clear consequences, (in some ways perhaps made clearer than our world)
    and SRD's implicit model of the human condition.
Just to keep things interesting:
Peeps don't need to sacrifice to effect good...their good is being intentionally and externally torn apart...good is what they are.
I think I'd agree that the people of the land ARE good, and that for them to be good IS more important than for them to do good.
But because they're good, they have less defenses against seeing when it would be useful or necessary to sacrifice, (i.e. justifications for why they "don't have to" or erroneous reasons why they "shouldn't") and so they do.
vraith wrote:the world has consequences, like any world, but they aren't clear, aren't obvious except in the most nebulous/general ways.
Yes, that's a problem. But don't they become clear later on?
(Partly because we get to follow the story of the Land through decades and hundreds of years.)
What are some reasons you think they aren't clear?
vraith wrote:there is more than one model, and more than one condition. and from another angle, it's about wars between those models and conditions.
Ahh. Yeah. True in both the Chrons and in life.

I've even actually found some stuff that Z has said about "compromises" rather practical at some times, in my day-to-day life.
Last edited by Linna Heartbooger on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"People without hope not only don't write novels, but what is more to the point, they don't read them.
They don't take long looks at anything, because they lack the courage.
The way to despair is to refuse to have any kind of experience, and the novel, of course, is a way to have experience."
-Flannery O'Connor

"In spite of much that militates against quietness there are people who still read books. They are the people who keep me going."
-Elisabeth Elliot, Preface, "A Chance to Die: The Life and Legacy of Amy Carmichael"
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10623
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time
Been thanked: 3 times

Post by Vraith »

Linna Heartlistener wrote:
Vraith wrote: Peeps don't need to sacrifice to effect good...their good is being intentionally and externally torn apart...good is what they are.
I think I'd agree that the people of the land ARE good, and that them to be good IS more important than for them to do good.
But because they're good, they have less defenses against seeing when it would be useful or necessary, (i.e. justifications for why they "don't have to" or erroneous reasons why they "shouldn't") and so they do.
vraith wrote:the world has consequences, like any world, but they aren't clear, aren't obvious except in the most nebulous/general ways.
Yes, that's a problem. But don't they become clear later on?
(Partly because we get to follow the story of the Land through decades and hundreds of years.)
What are some reasons you think they aren't clear?
In our world, I'd probably agree with most of this.
But the two pieces you cite are connected there as they are not here. There are very very few who can literally see good and still do evil [barring outside influence]...in our world that is commonplace. Probably in part cuz in our world the motives aren't patently obvious, and cuz peeps choose to allow certain evils in others so they can then do it themselves and claim it's just how things are.
Also because in that world [I've said this before] intention often matters more, physically, factually, than it ever does in ours. In many ways, intention is inextricably tied to power/act in a way it is not in our world.
So it's different: In our world seers, prophets, oracles fail cuz we cannot see the effects/details of results of a cause. In that one it fails cuz the motives/intentions of the cause matter as much or more than the effects...to a great extent the effects happen not because of the fact of an action, but because of how the actor feels about it.
In a way, it's like in our world we have the butterfly effect, which involves sensitivity to initial conditions, they have sensitivity to initial desire.
And for that reason, no, consequences never become clear. That is why every single prophecy in a world of magic ends up being wrong, and why outsiders of unfathomable motive are an essential part of it.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Linna Heartbooger
Are you not a sine qua non for a redemption?
Posts: 3896
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:17 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Linna Heartbooger »

Vraith wrote:But the two pieces you cite are connected there as they are not here. There are very very few [in the Land] who can literally see good and still do evil [barring outside influence]...in our world that is commonplace. Probably in part cuz in our world the motives aren't patently obvious, and cuz peeps choose to allow certain evils in others so they can then do it themselves and claim it's just how things are.
Right, I heartily second that last comment.
vraith wrote:Also because in that world [I've said this before] intention often matters more, physically, factually, than it ever does in ours. In many ways, intention is inextricably tied to power/act in a way it is not in our world.
Are you so sure that intention is not very bound to power/action in our world, though?
It's definitely not always the case, but there are some pretty strong examples where I think it is.
I think I've got a decent counter-example, but it's definitely not an airtight argument. (will describe it if you want me to)

I actually think that intention is tied to effect/end-result more than we think in our world.
(except there's the problem of ignorance; but that problem is often "solved" after a few iterations of a person failing at something and really and truly trying to figure out why he/she failed.)
"People without hope not only don't write novels, but what is more to the point, they don't read them.
They don't take long looks at anything, because they lack the courage.
The way to despair is to refuse to have any kind of experience, and the novel, of course, is a way to have experience."
-Flannery O'Connor

"In spite of much that militates against quietness there are people who still read books. They are the people who keep me going."
-Elisabeth Elliot, Preface, "A Chance to Die: The Life and Legacy of Amy Carmichael"
User avatar
Linna Heartbooger
Are you not a sine qua non for a redemption?
Posts: 3896
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:17 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Linna Heartbooger »

I wanna bring up yet another theme that I've been thinking about A LOT on this, one of my favorite SRD-related threads:

The theme from Christianity I'm thinking about is the theme of "staying awake!" and warnings against "drunkenness." (which can be about literal drunkenness - but is often about being "drunk" with power, self-indulgence/self-absorbtion that kills passion, etc.)

Basically I compare it to Covenant's obsessive vigilance and the "law of leprosy"... if he lets himself "slip up," not being watchful and vigilant every moment, it will eventually lead to horrible things including death.
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3490
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Holsety »

His death (as it is for all of us) was inevitable. He spends most of the first 2 Chrons resisting that, and then stops resisting.
I dunno. I have to read the 2nd chrons again XD But, resisting death is not the same thing as resisting that death is inevitable. It's resisting an inevitable death. I'm not saying you can't do both, but I think Covenant was more often accepting the eventual certainty than he was denying the possibility. If you didn't mean to say any of what I was refuting, sorry - that's what it sounded like.

I mean, it's been so long, and I know covenant was different in the 2nd chrons.
But the two pieces you cite are connected there as they are not here. There are very very few who can literally see good and still do evil [barring outside influence]...in our world that is commonplace. Probably in part cuz in our world the motives aren't patently obvious, and cuz peeps choose to allow certain evils in others so they can then do it themselves and claim it's just how things are.
The people of the land see good and evil differently than we do. Regardless of whether their health sense is more or less correct, it also seems to make things more vivid. Good is almost tangible. Even if, in our world, it is literally corrosive for the individual to do an evil act and restorative to do a good act - for every individual - the people of the land seem to be far more in touch with those corrosions and restorations - or both affect them more, they are sensitized. They feel them coming on a bit better, not only for themselves but for others.

Also, wild magic isn't good or evil, but it destroys peace XD Sometimes, that seems like it's more like a warning about earthlings than just covenant...
The theme from Christianity I'm thinking about is the theme of "staying awake!" and warnings against "drunkenness." (which can be about literal drunkenness - but is often about being "drunk" with power, self-indulgence/self-absorbtion that kills passion, etc.)

Basically I compare it to Covenant's obsessive vigilance and the "law of leprosy"... if he lets himself "slip up," not being watchful and vigilant every moment, it will eventually lead to horrible things including death.
I think that his laws become more vital to him, and were more often repeated to the people of the land, after the rape of Lena. Maybe he was drunk or intoxicated off of some land-brew, but I am hesitant to attribute the core of it to that. By the duties that he felt being heaped upon him along with his honors, and then the belief that Lena was either the land or himself striking out at him. That brought out fear, that brought out hate.

It think it is true, that while Covenant worked very hard to maintain the conviction that the land was just his imagination's invention, a fake world, he also fought his hate with his hate of his hate, and what he had done with it. It is hard for me to say that he explained it as an illusion to excuse himself, but I think he did use it to forget (or try to). It seems likely that is because the land was beautiful and good to him. I think it's mercy, however, made him hate himself more, because it was given to him because of his importance, and he felt that his importance was disastrous rather than beneficial. There were few points where he seeemed successful in not caring, even if he was successful in not believing.

So I think there are aspects of awareness and unawareness, of trying to be aware and unaware, that aren't always neatly together.
User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

The phrase 'noli me tangere' came into my mind yesterday and I made a connection with Covenant's, 'Don't touch me!'

I'm not sure how strong the connection maybe, but it's the first time I made it.

I have an article 'The Hero's Education in Sacrificial Love: Thomas Covenant, Christ Figure' that I scanned recently and I'm tidying up. I'll post it here as soon as it's ready.
u.
Tho' all the maps of blood and flesh
Are posted on the door,
There's no one who has told us yet
What Boogie Street is for.
User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

[Double post]

And here it is (from Mythlore 54: Summer 1988):
Page 1

The Hero's Education in Sacrificial Love
Thomas Covenant, Christ-figure

Matthew A. Fike



Although Stephen R. Donaldson has begun to receive critical attention, much remains to be said about the major themes of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. Gordon E. Slethaug, for example, rightly identifies Covenant's need "to go beyond himself so that he can perceive beauty and experience love in the most hideous humans and devastated landscapes," but his treatment of the title character as victim and victimizer does not pursue the theme of love or the complementary relation of love and beauty (26). By exploring these issues in the six Chronicles, this essay charts Thomas Covenant's growth , and thus makes possible an extended view of the scope and quality of human love in Donaldson's universe.

In the first trilogy, an old man -- the Creator Himself -- gives Thomas Covenant a tract urging belief in the Land, and fortifies his body against a fatal allergic reaction to antivenin. And when Linden Avery comes to Haven Farm to meet Thomas Covenant in the second trilogy, she first encounters the same fetid-mouthed old man, who collapses by the road. After she revives him with CPR, he enigmatically counsels, "'Ah, my daughter, do not fear.... You will not fail, however he may assail you. There is also love in the world.... Be true'" (IV, 15). (Note 1) Such intervention in human affairs, however eldritch or enigmatic, reveals not only that the Creator is concerned for His worlds but also that He is, like the Christian God, a God of love.

While He counsels Covenant and Linden on Earth, He cannot intervene after they are trans­ported to the Land lest he break the Arch of Time, freeing Lord Foul to ravage the universe. The Creator cannot even incarnate Himself as he does at Haven Farm to counsel the Lords. He depends, as much as Foul, on fallible beings who retain free choice. Unlike our world, then, the Land seems void of actual grace -- God's sudden intervention for a specific purpose.(Note 2) But the love of which the Creator speaks is a cardinal value in the Land, and Thomas Covenant, in his journey through the six Chronicles, matures toward self-sacrificial love whose paradigm is Christ's death on the cross.

Thomas Covenant's name, of course, directly implies the paradoxical nature of his presence in the Land. He is at once the doubting Thomas of the Gospel of John -- the original "unbeliever" -- and an embodiment of the term "covenant," first mentioned by a faith healer who quotes Revelation 21:6-8:
"'To the thirsty I will give water without price from the fountain of the water of life. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly, the unbelievers, the polluted, as or murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.'

"Marvelous, marvelous Words of God. Here in one short passage we hear the two great messages of the Bible, the Law and the Gospel, the Old Covenant and the New." ( III, l7)
A moment later he remarks, "'Never mind murder fornication, sorcery, idolatry, lies. We're all good people here.'" Ironically, Covenant himself is an unbeliever, polluted by leprosy, who has murdered raped and lied. The hypocritical preacher has him thrown out -- the salvation he offers is selective, not for the likes of Covenant -- in contradiction of the words of Isaiah 55:1: ""Ho, everyone who thirsts,/ come to the waters;'"' the words of Christ Himself in John 7:37: "''If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink'" (italics Fike);(Note 3) and the preacher's own claim that Christ "'hung on the cross erected in the midst of misery and shame to pay the price of our sin for us'" (III, 19). The preacher's words affirm the new covenant open to anyone, but his actions embody the spirit of the old.

Although Thomas Covenant rejects, and is in a sense rejected by, religious doctrine, he nevertheless journeys, in a Land touched by God's hand since the creation, toward the meaning of his name. The word covenant incorporates three Greek concepts: mesites, mediator, intermediary, guarantor; engyos, guarantor; and diatheke, irrevocable decision (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 365-73). Though reluctantly at first, Thomas Covenant clearly mediates between the Creator and the Land, between the Creator and Foul, between Foul and the Land, and finally between Foul and the Arch of Time, as Christ Himself mediates between God and man. And the Lords of Revelstone clearly view him as the possible guarantor of their deliverance from Foul, as Christ guarantees salvation. The word engyos, in suggesting legal obligation carried out even at the hazard of one's life (New International Dictionary, 372), approaches the following spirit of diatheke:
A prerequisite of its effectiveness before the law is the death of the disposer. Hence diatheke must be clearly distinguished from syntheke, an agreement. In the latter two partners engaged in common activity accept reciprocal obligations. Diatheke is found only once with this meaning.... Elsewhere it always means a one-sided action. (New International Dictionary, 365)
****************************************************************************


Page 2


A covenant, then, involves self-sacrifice, which is the essence of the divinely enabled agapic love Christ embodies on the cross. Christ's sacrifice seals the new covenant (A Theological Word Book of the Bible, 318). To such sacrificial love Thomas Covenant matures, though his death does not participate in the divine.

Covenant's journey, however, begins with eros, not as the Platonic desire for transcendent beauty, but as the love of the earthly beautiful for the perceiver's own sake, particularly the desire for sexual union with a woman. In the Chronicles Covenant's eros manifests itself in two main areas: passion and beauty.

As Lord Foul's Bane opens, Thomas Covenant. finds himself alone and impotent, longing for the passionate communion he lost when his wife Joan divorced him. A leper, he struggles to deny the past and the body, and "to crush out his imagination... a faculty which could envision Joan, joy, health" (I, 20). To overcome his genuine need for human love he steels himself against all reminders of his erstwhile erotic relationship in a denial of passion itself. But despite concretizing his denial of eros in actions like burning his best seller, "an inane piece of self-congratulation " (V, 327), which arises from and reflects the rapture of his early marriage, the revitalization of his leprous nerves in the Land takes him quite by surprise. Healed by hurtloam and awash with sensation, he rapes Lena -- the ultimate crime of passion and self­-possession.(Note 4) In addition, he visits The Door in The Illearth War, a night club described "as if he were entering the first circle of [Dante's] hell," where lust abides (II, 17). Singer Susie Thurston churns out in terrible verse the same shallow denial of love that he received from Joan:
Let go my heart --
Your love makcs me look small to myself.
Now, I don't want to give you any hurt,
But what I feel is part of myself:
What you want turns what I've got to dirt
So let go of my heart.
(II, 22)
The song burns him, and he makes for the door, determined to deny the hurt and loss that the song evokes in him.

Covenant's appreciation of beauty is a second mark of eros. Lena sings:
Something there is in beauty
which grows in the soul of the beholder
like a flower:
fragile --
for many are the blights
which may waste the beauty
or the beholder -­-
and imperishable --
for the beauty may die,
or the beholder may die,
or the world may die,
but the soul in which the flower grows
survives. (I, 57)
In other words, the soul which appreciates beauty -- Covenant's soul -- survives the heart break of beauty's passing. At this point in the narrative he would deny that he has such a soul, but later the Land's beauty and health are palpable to him: "All the colors -- the trees, the heather end bracken the aliantha, the flowers, and the infinite azure sky -- were vibrant with the eager ness of spring, lush and exuberant rebirth of the world (I, 117). Covenant is equally struck by the beauty of Andelain, described as the heart­ healing richness of the Land" (I, 149), "the bright Earth jewel of Andelain" (II, 54). and "'priceless Andelain, the beauty of life'" (I, 399). There, unable to act he watches the ur-viles destroy the Wraiths which "had been so beautiful" (I, 169). Earlier, when he asks why the Hirebrand of Soaring Woodhelven trusts him, the Hirebrand replies, as if to confirm the implication of Lena's song, "'You are a man who knows the value of beauty'" . (I, 147). In the second trilogy, with a more developed view of the Land and himself, he explains to Linden why he cared so much for the Land during his earlier visits: "'The Land was incredibly beautiful. And the way the people loved it, served it -- that was beautiful, too. Lepers,' he concluded mordantly, 'are susceptible to beauty'" (IV, 83-84).

Passion and appreciation of beauty enable and define Covenant's first victory over Foul. Passion not only corresponds with lust but also enables power. In The Power That Preserves, Covenant and High Lord Mhoram, independently of each other, discover the link between passion and power. For ages the Oath of Peace, designed to restrain violent emotion that could conduce to despair and Desecration, handicapped the Lords' ability to understand Kevin's Lore, simply because it denied the very key to the Seven Wards: passion itself. Armed with his new understanding, Mhoram awakens Loric's krill and slays the Giant raver whose army assaults Revelstone. Meanwhile, Covenant defeats Foul, a victory motivated by the Land's beauty and enabled by passion. When Foul asks why Covenant refuses the offer of health, mastery and friendship, he replies, "'Because I love the Land'" (III, 454). When Foul torments him with a vision in which his friends appear "mortally ill, rife and hideous with leprosy," he erupts. "Fury at their travail spouted up in him like lava. Volcanic anger, so long buried under the weight of his complex ordeal, sent livid, fiery passion geysering into the void .... Fury exalted Covenant" (III, 459). When he touches the Illearth Stone, wild magic, rising from his passion, burst from his ring:
The wild magic was passionate and unfathomable, as high as Time and as deep as Earth --raw power limited only by the limits of his will. And his will was growing, raising its head, blossoming on the rich sap of rage. Moment by moment, he was becoming equal to the Despiser's attack. (III, 462)

****************************************************************************

Page 3



The passion that defines and limits Covenant's love enables his initial victory. True to the nature of eros, it is a selfish act, motivated by the beautiful. Says Covenant, "'I'm going to do it for myself. So that I can at least believe in me before I lose my mind altogether'" (III, 135). Thus, in the first trilogy, Covenant journeys from passionate abuse of the beautiful in the rape of Lena to passionate desire for beauty's preservation.

Though still far from the pinnacle of sacrificial love, Covenant learns philia, a love which does not exclude but enlarges and enriches eros. Philia is essentially selfless "social love, affection of friends," and sometimes suggests warmth and endearment (Theological Word Book, 133-34 ). The term also embraces qualities such as courtesy, goodwill, forbearance, honesty and greatheartedness, which nurture friendship.

When Lord Foul's Bane opens, Covenant's leprosy separates him from the townspeople; his denial of joy and his conviction that he is outcast and unclean create a 'moral solitude’ as well (I, 22). He finds that his bills are paid for him and that groceries are delivered without his request. Donaldson (sic) speculates, "if he did not resist this trend, he would soon have no reason at all to go among his fellow human beings" (I, 4 ). In a dream the townspeople torment him with his isolation:
"You are dead. Without the community, you can't live. Life is in the community, and you have no community. You can't live if no one cares.

"... Take him to the hospital. Heal him. There is only one good answer to death. Heal him and throw him out." (I, 191)
Covenant's "need for people became unendurable," driving him to attend the faith healing service (III, 13). And so with his visit to The Door: while the bar radiates all the lust of the first circle of Dante's hell, it also provides companionship, sordid but genuine. In the same manner, Covenant's first victory over Foul is not only the apotheosis of his passion for the Land's beauty but also the product of Foamfollower's greatheartedness and a sign of the companionable love they share. Instead of trying to kill Foul, an action he realizes would make him a despiser of Foul's image, he asks the Giant to laugh. Soon the wraiths of the old Lords laugh along with him, and their laughter reduces Foul's form to nothingness. Unknowingly Covenant thus acts on Lord Osondrea's earlier word s to the Giant: "'When many matters press you, consider friendship first'" (I, 265).

In the first trilogy part of what makes Covenant an isolate -- his acerbic personality -- is partly cast off in favor of forbearance, which is particularly noteworthy in several episodes. "He had lived without tact or humor for such a long time. But he had promised to be forbearant" (I, 382). Consequently, he speaks gently to Manethrall Lithe in Book I, and he is later kind to the insane Lena in Book III, Even more to the point, he refuses Elena's offer of marriage. Although she is beautiful and he desires her, he appreciates her qualities without succumbing to lust. Instead he loves her for what she is: his daughter and his companion. But though his actions suggest philia, his motivation bears the selfishness of eros. He manipulates her, as he finally admits just before Amok leads them to the Power of Command: '"I watched you and helped you so that when you got here you would look exactly like that -- so you would challenge Foul yourself without stopping to think about what you're doing -- so that whatever happens to the Land would be your fault instead of mine. So that 1 could escape!'" (II, 494).

For Donaldson, eros and philia are not mutually exclusive, and nowhere are they more complementary than in Covenant's relationship with Linden Avery. "He was a hungry man who had at last tasted the aliment for which his soul craved'" (V, 381): namely, a living love. For as long as I can get it'" (VI, 275). He deceives her, however, by not telling her that experiences in the Land do not affect one's physical condition in our own world. In the second trilogy, he lies with a knife in his chest in the woods near Haven Farm, and he cannot return to his body without rending the Arch of Time. In effect, he allows her to love a dead man, selfishly savoring her love while he still can, because he does not want to return to "the hungry and unassuaged life he had lived before he had found Linden's love.. (VI, 15), But as he finally explains himself to Elena, so he also explains the true nature of his condition to Linden, and his honesty not only marks, in each case, the philia lie achieves throughout the six Chronicles but also ultimately heightens the value of his lovemaking with Linden -- they love that well which they must leave ere long.

Covenant's death, in fact, fulfills his walk through the Land, for in it he achieves a self-sacrificial love akin to agape. Paul says of agape, "Love does not insist on its own way" (1 Cor. 13:5); and “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dies for us" (Romans 5:8 ). Thus it is selfless love of the unlovable, involving "total self-surrender," made possible by the participation of our love in Christ's (Catholic Encyclopedia VIII, 1044). Agape, then, is not only the love which compels Christ to the cross (A Handbook of Christian Theology, 97) and which He embodies in his death, but also the selfless sacrificial love in which one may participate through His sacrifice.

Thomas Covenant's two deaths -- the first in the woods near Haven Farm when he dies in Joan's place; the second in Kiril Threndor when Foul impales him with wild magic -- capture the spirit but not the essence of agape. Each death is self-sacrificial, but neither is enabled by divine love. The Lords are ambivalent even about the Creator's existence. Mhoram, for example, remarks that "'we do not know a Creator lives. Our only lore of such a being comes from the most shadowy reaches of our oldest legends. We know the Despiser. But the Creator we do not know'" (I, 292). Tamarantha offers a Blakian objection, "'Of course the Creator lives... there can be no Despite without Creation'" (I, 293). Whether or not the Creator exists, the people of the Land do not have a personal rela-

****************************************************************************

Page 4



tionship with him: "'Worship?' Prothall seemed puzzled. 'The word is obscure to me'" (I, 345). covenant himself makes the definitive denial of divine grace: '"Creators are the most helpless people alive. They have to work through unsufferable -- they have to work through tools as blunt and misbegotten and useless as myself'" (III, 130). Ultimately, Covenant's death in the Land serves the Creator's purpose, but the Creator does not empower or participate in Covenant's sacrifice.

Although Covenant is appalled by their self­-sacrifice, people throughout the Chronicles willingly lay down their lives for him and bear his burdens. Lena stays silent about the rape until Atiaran and Covenant have begun their journey. Foamfollower exhausts himself to draw power from the boat on Covenant's first journey to Revelstone. A Ranyhyn allows itself to be pierced by a spear intended for Covenant. Kelenbhrabanal, the legendary Father of Horses, naively sacrifices himself to Foul in hopes of stopping a war. A healer takes Covenant's pain, wounds and madness upon herself. Melma (sic) places herself between the company and the na-Mhoram's Grim. Seadreamer places himself between Covenant and the One Tree. And the Bloodguard continually serve the Lords, sometimes for centuries, until death consummates their service.

Three sacrifices stand out from the rest. First, of course, Foamfollower allows himself to be immolated in Covenant's conflagration, a sacrifice that assures the Land's continued health. Hamako, the Stonedowner who has dedicated his life to the Waynhim, defeats an arghule which bears a croyel on his back. Linden rails at the needless loss of Hamako's life, but Covenant replies, "'You let him achieve the meaning of his own life"' (VI, 152). And Caer-Caveral (the former Hile Troy) allows Sunder to strike him with the krill, a sacrifice which breaks the Law of Life, allowing not only Hollian's rejuvenation but also Covenant's final victory over Foul. In each case, true to the meaning of the word covenant which involves the death of the disposer, a character finds in death the meaning of his life.

Though Covenant does not realize it, he is himself moving toward a sacrificial death. As Christ dies to overcome sin, Covenant will die to overcome Foul. Throughout the Chronicles, in fact, Donaldson describes Covenant by allusion to Christ's life and crucifixion. Christ's return is prophesied in Revelation, and the return of Berek Halfhand, whom Covenant resembles, is a favorite legend in the Land. People wanted Christ to be a martial savior, and the Land expects Covenant to wield his power for its benefit: "These people [Mithil Stonedowners] wanted him to be a hero" (I, 83). Christ is associated with the cross; Covenant, with Loric's krill, which "stood in the dirt like a small cross" (VI, 381), but ultimately he achieves, willing sacrifice" deliberate acquiescence to death" (VI, 401).

Donaldson frequently describes Covenant's physical condition with imagery of the crucifixion. At the end of Lord Foul's Bane his doctor draws a connection between the crucifixion and leprosy:
"It must be hell to be a leper," he said rapidly. "I'm trying to understand. It's like -- I studied in Heidelberg, years ago, and while I was there I saw a lot of medieval art. Especially religious art. Being a leper reminds me of statues of the Crucifixion made during the Middle Ages. There is Christ on the Cross, and his features -­ his body, even his face -- are portrayed so blandly that the figure is unrecognizable. It could be anyone, man or woman. But the wounds -- the nails in the hands and feet, the spear in the side, the crown of thorns -- are carved and even painted in incredibly vivid detail. You would think the artist crucified his model to get that kind of realism.

"Being a leper must be like that." (I, 473-74)
When Covenant awakens on Easter morning at the end of The Power That Preserves, "His right wrist was also tied, so that he lay in the bed as if he had been crucified" (III, 478). When he saves the little girl who has been bitten by a timber rattler, "Despite the nails of pain which crucified him, he lurched onward" (III, 66), His condition in the Land is described in similar terms. When he frowns "he wore the healing of his forehead like a crown of thorns" (II, 79). Later "the pain in his ankle held him down as if his foot had been nailed to the ground" (III, 223). Covenant remembers how Marid bit him: ''Marid had nailed venom between the bones of Covenant's forearms, crucifying him to the fate Lord Foul had prepared for him" (VI, 164). In Seareach, the sight of the Giant Raver's slaying "pierced Covenant's eyes, impaled his vision and his mind like the nails of crucifixion" (IV, 483). 'When the Elohim touches him to unlock the location of the One Tree, "Covenant knelt with the power blazing from his forehead as if he were being crucified by nails of brainfire" (V, 144). In the Cavern of the One Tree, "Covenant stood with his arms spread like a crucifixion" (V, 454). With his power alight, he sends Linden back to the woods by Haven Farm where "He lay as if he had been crucified on the stone" (V, 460).

These descriptions of Covenant's physical condition suggest that his two deaths in some way capture the spirit of Christ's. Dr. Berenford tells Linden at the end of Book VI what the fanatics mistakenly thought when Covenant offered himself in Joan's place: "'When he was forced to offer him­ self for sacrifice, the whole world would be purged of sin'" (VI, 474). While the Land is still not purged of Foul at the end of White Gold Wielder, Covenant's sacrifice greatly reduces him. To Linden's horror, Covenant hands Foul his white gold wedding ring and then manipulates Foul into killing him. Foul builds up a blast to rive the Arch of Time and sends it upward through Mount Thunder, but somewhere inside the mountain the power is shattered by Thomas Covenant, "A man who had placed himself between Lord Foul and the Arch of Time" (VI, 449). When his wraith becomes visible in the cavern, instead of fighting as he had in his earlier victory, Covenant says, '"I wouldn't dream of fighting you'" (VI, 450), He allows Foul to fire

****************************************************************************
Page 5



wild magic at him: "Blast after blast, he absorbed the power of Despite and fire and became stronger. Surrendering to their savagery, he transcended them" (VI, 451). In other words, as Christ takes upon his head the sins of all men, Covenant absorbs hatred and fury so that Foul goes out like a light -- defeated but not destroyed.

Yet Covenant is not Christ. Be "could not bear to be treated as if he were some kind of savior; he could not love (?sic?) with such an image of himself" (IV, 75). Although his sacrifice fulfills the meaning of his name and expresses his agape-like love for a once beautiful Land where even Andelain has not escaped the blight of the Sunbane, his ultimate act is not motivated by participation in divine love, and it is not totally selfless. Rather, in his two deaths he seeks to expiate his guilt: for being a leper, his crime against Joan; and for all the deaths he has caused in the Land. Whereas Christ pays mankind's debt of sin, Covenant pays his own. But in showing that on his own one can achieve self -sacrifice, a quality of love thought possible only through divine grace, Thomas Covenant's death fulfills the covenant best expressed by Atiaran: it is the responsibility of the living to justify the sacrifices of the dead (III, 42).

Notes

1: All quotations are from Stephen R. Donaldson, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Books I-VI (New York: Ballentine Books):Lord Foul's Bane, The Illearth War, The Power that Preserves (1977); The Wounded Land (1980), The One Tree (1982), White Gold Wielder (1983).

2: St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Ia2ae Qlll Art. 2.

3: Biblical quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.

4: Sletheug writes, "When he is offered compassion by Lena, he has grown so used to feelings of victimization and violence that he beats and rapes her..." (25). But as Covenant himself explains, the rape is an uncontrollable response not to victimization but to beauty and sensation: "'After my leprosy was diagnosed, and Joan divorced me, I was impotent for a year. Then I came here. Something I couldn't understand was happening. The Land was healing parts of me that had been dead so long I'd forgotten I had them. And Lena -- The pang of her stung him like an acid. 'She was so beautiful. I still have nightmares about it. The first night -- It was too much for me. Lepers aren't supposed to be potent'" (IV, 91)

Sources Cited

Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Oxford: Blackfriars, 1972.

Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. I. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.

Donaldson, Stephen R. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Books I-VI. New York: Ballantine Books, 1977-1983.

A Handbook of Christian Theology: Definition Essays on Concepts and Movements of Thought in Contemporary Protestantism. New York: Meridan Books, Inc., 1958.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VIII. Washington
D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1967.

Lindsell, Harold, ed. Harper Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1982.

Richardson, Alan. A Theological Word Book of theBible. New York: Macmillan, 1950.

Slethaug, Gordon E. "No Exit: The Hero as Victim in Donaldson." Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, O.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, General Fantasy & Mythic Studies 40 (1984): 20-27.
It's a bit typo-ridden because of the scanning. If you spot anything really obvious let me know and I'll tidy it up a bit more.

u.
Last edited by ussusimiel on Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tho' all the maps of blood and flesh
Are posted on the door,
There's no one who has told us yet
What Boogie Street is for.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by wayfriend »

You're absolutely awesome for posting that, ussusimiel. Thank you.

I'd like to discuss some of the points Fike raises in this, but it wouldn't be fair to do so until you have had a chance, Mike. I'm sure you've been thinking about the contents of this.
.
User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

Good to see you around, way!

Kick off the discussion. I haven't really digested the article fully and it'd be handy to have some points to consider as I do.

u.
Tho' all the maps of blood and flesh
Are posted on the door,
There's no one who has told us yet
What Boogie Street is for.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10623
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time
Been thanked: 3 times

Post by Vraith »

That's very nice.
Especially since, for the most part, it draws the comparisons without necessity for distorting the meaning of either of the things being compared. Shows the overlapping terrain without compromising/polluting the other territories.

OTOH, resorting to my [mostly self-proclaimed] Devil's advocate role in this thread:

There is a real, and to my mind overwhelmingly significant point that I don't think is mentioned in the thread [I'm not going to reread the whole thing to be sure] nor in that piece:

It is explicit in the Chronicles [even including the Last...no spoilers that's all I'll say] that the "world" is fucked up because the Creator fucked up.

[[there's a modification of that that I can't talk about without spoilering LC's...but it doesn't change the fact...only the reason/nexus]

In RL, Jesus is necessary because of OUR sins/shortcomings.
In the Land, TC is necessary because the CREATOR erred.
Jesus gives us a chance to accept and "make it up to" God, and be forgiven.
TC gives the Creator a way to make it up to US.
And that is the divergent road that makes all the difference.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

Vraith wrote:There is a real, and to my mind overwhelmingly significant point that I don't think is mentioned in the thread [I'm not going to reread the whole thing to be sure] nor in that piece:

It is explicit in the Chronicles [even including the Last...no spoilers that's all I'll say] that the "world" is fucked up because the Creator fucked up.

[[there's a modification of that that I can't talk about without spoilering LC's...but it doesn't change the fact...only the reason/nexus]
Well then we'll just have to take it to the new forum.

u.
Tho' all the maps of blood and flesh
Are posted on the door,
There's no one who has told us yet
What Boogie Street is for.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by wayfriend »

I think one would need to be a bit clear as to what one considers to be a "Christ figure".

Surely any hero who makes a sacrifice to save the world shouldn't be considered a "Christ figure". If they are, then there are so many of them that they aren't very interesting.

Off the top of my head, I would say a Christ-figure (a) embodies an ideal and inspires others to strive for it, (b) suffers for doing so, and (c) in some miraculous way uses that suffering to produce the ideal. But you will not find anyone authoritative who thinks along these lines.

The only book series I have ever read that had one of these kinds of characters was David C. Smith's The Fall of the First World trilogy, which was not only awesome, but had mortals chosen to be Good Incarnate, Evil Incarnate, and Humanity.

O humanity,
Born in a storm and wandering in a storm,
These things that come, they come with cause.


... sorry. Anyway-

On the web, there are definitions. Wikipedia defines a Christ Figure as someone who "displays more than one correspondence with the story of Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible. For instance, the character might display one or more of the following traits: performance of miracles, manifestation of divine qualities, healing others, display loving kindness and forgiveness, fight for justice, being guided by the spirit of the character's father, death and resurrection. Christ figures are often martyrs, sacrificing themselves for causes larger than themselves."

That's a definition that seems to require historical correspondences rather than alluding to any role a character has. E.g. If you transform water into wine, your a Christ figure. Again, I find this uninteresting.

Thomas C. Foster has a similar idea. He gives us a checklist:
Ways to recognize a Christ figure
+ Crucified, wounds in the hands feet, side and head
+ In agony (perhaps even great physical suffering)
+ Self-sacrificing (big sacrifice, preferably a life, for others)
+ Good with children
+ Good with loaves, fish, water, wine
+ Thirty-three years of age when last seen
+ Known to use humble modes of transportation, feet or donkeys preferred
+ Believed to have walked on water
+ Often portrayed with arms outstretched
+ Known to have had a confrontation with the devil, possibly tempted (in a wilderness--disappears to the wilderness)
+ Last seen in the company of thieves
+ Creator of many aphorisms and parables
+ Buried, but arose on the third day
+ Had disciples, twelve at first, although not all equally devoted
+ Very forgiving
+ Came to redeem an unworthy world (at the least offers hope)
All of which means I am led to make comments similar to Vraith: there's quite a few things about Covenant that don't correspond to Christ-the-historical-figure. But there are some small few things that do. The question is: how many do you need?
.
User avatar
Ananda
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 3:23 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Ananda »

Vraith wrote:In RL, Jesus is necessary because of OUR sins/shortcomings.
Vraith, I believe there are flavours of christianity that do not believe in the original sin thing and that people are born sinners.
Monsters, they eat
Your kind of meat
And they're moving as far as they can
And as fast as they can
Post Reply

Return to “The First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant”