Kevin's Watch

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:TC was the Unbeliever to the very end, he never affirmed the Land. Instead, he affirmed what the Land stands for. If the Land stands for Beauty, then he affirmed that Beauty and its affect on him. If the Land stands for Love, then he affirmed Love, not the Land itself. If he accepted anything, TC accepted that the Land, although unreal, had this affect on him. That is the eye of the paradox.

Right. But if he accepted that the Land, although unreal, had an affect on him - an affect so strong that he would die for it - then how can you say he "rejected" it ?!?!?

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:TC was the Unbeliever to the very end, he never affirmed the Land. Instead, he affirmed what the Land stands for. If the Land stands for Beauty, then he affirmed that Beauty and its affect on him. If the Land stands for Love, then he affirmed Love, not the Land itself. If he accepted anything, TC accepted that the Land, although unreal, had this affect on him. That is the eye of the paradox.

Right. But if he accepted that the Land, although unreal, had an affect on him - an affect so strong that he would die for it - then how can you say he "rejected" it ?!?!?

TC died saving that which was important to him, not necessarily what's real.

Lord Foul laughed again. "Do my ears betray me? Do you-after my Enemy has done all within his power to sway you-do you yet believe that this is a dream?"
"It isn't real. But that doesn't matter. That's not important."
"Then what is, groveler?"
"The Land. You."

TC rejected the Land's reality but not its importance to him. The only possible way this unreality could be important to him is through its affect on him.

Now you seem to be retreating from what you said earlier.

If Covenant admits that the Land, albeit unreal, has an effect on him - it completes his spiritual journey - then in what way is this an "antifantasy"?

Note that Donaldson's position on Fantasy, and where he thinks the Chronicles takes fantasy, isn't contingent on Unbelief. Unbelief isn't part of what Donaldson considers fantasy.

wayfriend wrote:Now you seem to be retreating from what you said earlier.

If Covenant admits that the Land, albeit unreal, has an effect on him - it completes his spiritual journey - then in what way is this an "antifantasy"?

Note that Donaldson's position on Fantasy, and where he thinks the Chronicles takes fantasy, isn't contingent on Unbelief. Unbelief isn't part of what Donaldson considers fantasy.

I know, I was referring to the fantasy essay at the point where I mentioned externalization. So I agree that Unbelief is not part of his definition of "fantasy."

So what I think you're saying is that I'm trying to prove "fantasy" and "anti-fantasy" at the same time, which is a contradiction. But the Chrons is certainly not a fantasy in the traditional sense, so it is an anti-fantasy in that respect.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: But the Chrons is certainly not a fantasy in the traditional sense, so it is an anti-fantasy in that respect.

That would make it a "non-fantasy", not an "anti-fantasy". I know its somewhat semantics, but it's important. Just because it is not traditional fantasy doesn't mean its against anything. You can make the case for it being NOT fantasy, but not AGAINST fantasy, based strictly on this statement.

rdhopeca wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: But the Chrons is certainly not a fantasy in the traditional sense, so it is an anti-fantasy in that respect.

That would make it a "non-fantasy", not an "anti-fantasy". I know its somewhat semantics, but it's important. Just because it is not traditional fantasy doesn't mean its against anything. You can make the case for it being NOT fantasy, but not AGAINST fantasy, based strictly on this statement.

As my "anti-hero" example shows, an anti-hero is not against heroes per se.
And I did state above that "anti-fantasy" does not mean "against fantasy."

Whoa, a lot to catch up with here. I'm not going to try to do it all in one post. If I leave anything out, it's sheer laziness and not because anyone failed to make a good point.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:But in literature such places, where every issue is black and white, good vs. evil, exist to teach lessons. If the lesson in this case is that there is no good or evil, then what SRD is creating with the Chrons should be called anti-fantasy.

Whoa! No good and no evil? That's Donaldson's lesson?!?!

I could not disagree more. I think Malik went awry a little earlier in stating that Covenant needs to reject his destructive side and embrace his creative one. No... what Covenant needs to do is embrace ... and integrate ... both sides.

It's a fair point, but I don't think we're in disagreement as much as I need to clarify or correct misinterpretation of my point.

I think Donaldson is saying there is no Good and Evil, but he's certainly not saying there is no good and evil. Absolute, external vs relative, subjective.

Also, I agree that Covenant must accept his destructive side . . . but that doesn't preclude fighting against it--otherwise his 1st Chrons solution would be rendered false. I don't believe the individual Chronicles are invalidating each other, but instead showing that the picture is more complex. They are three facets of the same problematic/solution. There is a difference between rejecting destructive tendencies and actions, and rejecting the idea that you have a destructive side at all. Accepting your destructive side is a necessary step in controlling it.

Not through denying that there is a distinction. But through understanding the purposes, and limitations, of both.

I think we agree. I think that's what I'm saying.

Doesn't Donaldson say, over and over, that you creation is irrevocably tied to destruction, and to truly be alive one must contain the seeds of destruction?

Quite true.

Covenant needs to embrace and integrate Foul, not reject Foul, in order to be complete.

Yes. Ok, we're on the same page. I either didn't express myself clearly, or you misunderstood. I'm willing to take the middle ground approach and just say it was miscommunication.

"Bored of the Rings." (Has anybody else here read that?)

Oh yeah! At one point, in the "teen years," I thougth it was funny. I need to read it again to make sure I can still stand by that assessment.

malik23 wrote:

Covenant needs to embrace and integrate Foul, not reject Foul, in order to be complete.

Yes. Ok, we're on the same page. I either didn't express myself clearly, or you misunderstood. I'm willing to take the middle ground approach and just say it was miscommunication. Smile

The problem is not miscommunication. The problem is the dropping of context. The discussion involves the first Chrons, and nothing about integrating the Despiser is even mentioned there.

I understand what you're saying on your other points, but ...

Malik23 wrote:I think Donaldson is saying there is no Good and Evil, but he's certainly not saying there is no good and evil. Absolute, external vs relative, subjective.

I'm absolutely on the other side of that opinion. In the Chronicles, there is assuredly Good and Evil. Donaldson himself describes Foul as "Archetypal Evil" and "Evil Incarnate". Covenant ultimately recognizes that power without cost the essence of Evil. Linden learns that possession is the hallmark of Evil. Desecration is the ultimate act of Evil. Rape is a metaphor for Evil. etc. etc.

(The whole series of Chronicles has been described as the search for the "answer to evil".)

I am not saying that there aren't good characters that sometimes do bad things, and bad characters that sometimes do good. Clearly, there are. All his characters have the capacity for good and evil, and the thrust of the story is to examine how each one struggles with it, and succeeds or fails.

But when they do good or do evil, the evaluation isn't relative. There's no measuring of the most good for the most people. Donaldson quite consistently describes what is good and what is evil in absolute terms.

And there are also plenty of occassions where we have good old black and white sides. Foul, Ravers, cavewights ... bad guys. Defenders of the Land, Waynhim, Ranyhyn, Giants ... good guys. We have some beings that we are unsure which side they fall on, like the Elohim and the ur-viles. But, again, the wondering doesn't come from any confusion over what is good and what is evil, it comes from not understanding their motives and goals.

The story is full of things that someone thought was good, but turned out to be evil. But there's very little of things that are a little bit good and a little bit evil. Judgements, while tricky until all the facts are in, are in the end absolute.

For example, Donaldson gives no credit to Kevin for saving the Land for another millenia by enacting the Ritual of Desecration. His action was just plain wrong.

And this is one of the staples of fantasy. Especially fantasy as Donaldson describes it. Inner struggles become externalized. But externalization also seperates and purifies. Covenant's good/creative side becomes the Creator, Covenants evil/destructive side becomes Lord Foul. And so the fantasy world is populated with these very black, very white, forces. So that they can be recognized, and then dealt with. The whole point, if you will, is to make things clearer so that they can then be understood.

In the Gradual Interview, Donaldson wrote:Out of (apparently) nowhere, my head was set fire by the notion (the tail of the comet) of a man from the "real world" confronting the archetypal evil of a "fantasy world" and emerging victorious because he knew that the "fantasy world" was not "real."
(06/08/2004)

In the Gradual Interview, Donaldson wrote:Further, it is consistent with the ideas I wrote about in "Epic Fantasy in the Modern World": if fantasy is a form of psychodrama in which a mind is turned inside out so that its aspects and conflicts can be dramatized as external characters and events, that implies a certain, well, let's call it single-minded-ness among many of the players. The Bloodguard. The Ramen and Ranyhyn. The Cavewights and ur-viles. The jheherrin. And, obviously, Lord Foul.
(06/29/2005)

Not trying to beat anyone over the head with this. Just wanted to say everything I had to say.

There is Good and Evil in the fantasy realm, but that realm isn't real. So Good and Evil aren't real.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:There is Good and Evil in the fantasy realm, but that realm isn't real. So Good and Evil aren't real.

Speaking of the Chronicles, I would say, if Good and Evil aren't real, then why does Covenant combat them, or even need to combat them? Don't confuse the reality of the Land with the reality of Good and Evil.

Again, I'm tempted to think you're making Unbelief a condition of Fantasy in general. In all other fantasies, like LOTR, the reality of the fantasy land isn't subject to question.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:There is Good and Evil in the fantasy realm, but that realm isn't real. So Good and Evil aren't real.

Speaking of the Chronicles, I would say, if Good and Evil aren't real, then why does Covenant combat them, or even need to combat them? Don't confuse the reality of the Land with the reality of Good and Evil.

Again, I'm tempted to think you're making Unbelief a condition of Fantasy in general. In all other fantasies, like LOTR, the reality of the fantasy land isn't subject to question.

Above this I denied making fantasy in general subject to Unbelief.

You may just as well ask, why did TC bother to fight LF at the end? Why fight it if you don't believe it even exists? And yet he was still the Unbeliever.

Doesn't this have to do with the eye of the paradox, which is the reason the Land happened to TC in the first place?

TC fought for something he cares about knowing full well that the things he cares about don't exist.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:There is Good and Evil in the fantasy realm, but that realm isn't real. So Good and Evil aren't real.

Speaking of the Chronicles, I would say, if Good and Evil aren't real, then why does Covenant combat them, or even need to combat them? Don't confuse the reality of the Land with the reality of Good and Evil.

Again, I'm tempted to think you're making Unbelief a condition of Fantasy in general. In all other fantasies, like LOTR, the reality of the fantasy land isn't subject to question.

Above this I denied making fantasy in general subject to Unbelief.

But you then stated that the fantasy realm does not exist. Which seems to make Unbelief part of fantasy in a general sense. So excuse my confusion.

If Unbelief is not an aspect of Fantasy itself, then how can you claim that the fantasy realm does not exist, and hence Good and Evil do not exist?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:TC fought for something he cares about knowing full well that the things he cares about don't exist.

And yet, if he cared about them, they have to be real to some degree. Or, better, he has to ALSO believe that they ARE real. (The paradox). Either way, means that Good and Evil are real when it comes down to Covenant confronting them.

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

wayfriend wrote: Speaking of the Chronicles, I would say, if Good and Evil aren't real, then why does Covenant combat them, or even need to combat them? Don't confuse the reality of the Land with the reality of Good and Evil.

Again, I'm tempted to think you're making Unbelief a condition of Fantasy in general. In all other fantasies, like LOTR, the reality of the fantasy land isn't subject to question.

Above this I denied making fantasy in general subject to Unbelief.

But you then stated that the fantasy realm does not exist. Which seems to make Unbelief part of fantasy in a general sense. So excuse my confusion.

That's ok

wayfriend wrote:If Unbelief is not an aspect of Fantasy itself, then how can you claim that the fantasy realm does not exist, and hence Good and Evil do not exist?

Because it is possible to believe that which doesn't exist or cannot be proven to exist. Ask any Christian.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:TC fought for something he cares about knowing full well that the things he cares about don't exist.

wayfriend wrote:And yet, if he cared about them, they have to be real to some degree. Or, better, he has to ALSO believe that they ARE real. (The paradox). Either way, means that Good and Evil are real when it comes down to Covenant confronting them.

He only has to believe that caring about the Land is real, not that the Land itself is real. Or so he implies at the end of TPTP when he tells LF that the Land isn't real and yet it is important to him. TC can still care about it even if it's only a dream or whatever.

Or one could say that the Land is "real" to the extent that TC cares about it. But that still reduces it to subjective reality, which is still to lend importance to a mere dream or delusion. All dreams have subjective reality. But that's not what TC means when he says that the Land and LF aren't real, he is claiming they have no objective reality.

Although the Land has no objective reality, it does have objective importance for TC. Slowly acquiring objective importance occurred over the length of three novels, and it was necessary for TC to return to the objective world (to wake up) in order to feel the full effects the dream was having on his real life. So finally, in TPTP, he was forced by events in both worlds to bring his dream or delusion to some kind of resolution, which would allow himself to carry on in the objective world, by taking on and defeating the evil dream-entity. As the dream led TC to despair in his "real" world, and the possibility of dying became a greater reality, he was forced to care about the events in his dream. He was able to care deeply enough to defeat the Land's fictitious enemy and thus carry on with life in his objective world, and survive.

I have to say that the Chronicles are definately religious, or a the very least a bold statement on the fundemental nature of religious belief. Thomas Covenant knows that God exists, whereas, the people of the Land don't.

QUESTION: What if TC belonged to the Land from the very beginning and had been cast down by Lord Foul into a hellish nightmare prison where he believed he wrote fantastic books, became rich and famous, got married and had a son, contracted leprosy, lost two fingers, and was outcast by all his friends and nieghbours?
If so, when he returns home to the Land (with Joan and Roger)he will know that his leprosy never really existed because it was all a bad dream, and also, the people of the Land will see the revealing nature of God.

The gold is in the...

WHAOW!!!! I'VE JUST BEEN ELEVATED TO AN ELOHIM!!!!

THANX DUDES!!!! YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!

THEY'RE ALL AS BOLD AS LOVE:JUST ASK THE AXIS -YEAH!!!!

Krazy Kat wrote:I have to say that the Chronicles are definately religious, or a the very least a bold statement on the fundemental nature of religious belief. Thomas Covenant knows that God exists, whereas, the people of the Land don't.

QUESTION: What if TC belonged to the Land from the very beginning and had been cast down by Lord Foul into a hellish nightmare prison where he believed he wrote fantastic books, became rich and famous, got married and had a son, contracted leprosy, lost two fingers, and was outcast by all his friends and nieghbours?
If so, when he returns home to the Land (with Joan and Roger)he will know that his leprosy never really existed because it was all a bad dream, and also, the people of the Land will see the revealing nature of God.

The gold is in the...

In other words, "...then the little boy fell out of bed and woke up."

Trite.

Wayfriend, you make your argument well, but I've got to disagree. I think the Chronicles are a study in how absolutes lead to destruction and inauthenticity. The Bloodguard were so absolute in their service, they couldn't accept the fact that they failed, so they quit. The giants were so absolute in their guilt and grief over becoming mastered by the Ravers, they let themselves be killed rather than face their weakness. The Oath of Peace was an absolute solution meant to keep people from enacting further Desecrations, but that led to them denying parts of themselves and weakened them. At every turn, Donaldson is arguing against absolutes, and seeking the eye of the paradox.

Ok, now to Good and Evil. Just because Foul is an archetype of evil--or even Evil (absolute)--doesn't mean that Covenant doesn't find subjective or relative solutions to that archetype. It's similar to Donaldson's distinction between thinking that meaning is created internally, but it still makes interesting stories to talk about people who believe that meaning is external and absolute, as he said here:

Donaldson wrote: I realize that many major religions are predicated on the idea that God (or some other external force) is going to fix things for us. All we have to do is have faith. But I can't see how that makes sense. If we aren't responsible for the content of our own lives, why do we bother to live at all?

On the other hand, *believing* that someone else is going to fix things for us can give rise to any number of storytelling possibilities.

(07/01/2005)

So even if Foul presents a confrontation with the idea or the problem of absolute Evil, that doesn't mean that this is a story purporting that idea--no more than that fact that Covenant confronting external, "religious" belief systems means that this story is about that. In fact, this story is about the the struggles against those two concepts, turning them on their head, and showing how they are inadequate.

In addition, if Foul is a symbol of Covenant's personal evil (his destructive side), then we're not talking about absolute, external evil--no more than an archetype of jealousy would be a symbol for absolute, external jealousy. Jealousy, like evil, doesn't exist as an external force in the world. Evil is a value judgment made by humans. We do not have Illearth Stones in the real world. There are no objects that are inherently evil. A solution to the Problem of Evil (as Donaldson claims to be working on) for a series about characters creating their own meaning, would be to view "Evil" as something created by people, something that doesn't exist on its own. It's only a judgment made in a context. It comes from us. Its NOT a Lord Foul, but an inner destructive tendency. And this is why Covenant must integrate it, because it really is just part of himself.

Malik23 wrote:I think the Chronicles are a study in how absolutes lead to destruction and inauthenticity. The Bloodguard were so absolute in their service, they couldn't accept the fact that they failed, so they quit. The giants were so absolute in their guilt and grief over becoming mastered by the Ravers, they let themselves be killed rather than face their weakness. The Oath of Peace was an absolute solution meant to keep people from enacting further Desecrations, but that led to them denying parts of themselves and weakened them. At every turn, Donaldson is arguing against absolutes, and seeking the eye of the paradox.

Certainly, Donaldson sees problems with people governing their lives with absolutes.

Donaldson himself has said:

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:No, there is no codified text ("bible") that reveals absolute truths--unless you think of "The Chronicles" themselves as a bible. <rueful smile> Nonetheless the characters do have access to what might be considered absolute truths. Earthpower is one. Law is another. The necessity of freedom is another. It is absolutely true that the Creator cannot reach through the Arch of Time to alter his creation without destroying its integrity. There are other examples. Still, I feel constrained to point out that one of the constant themes of "The Chronicles" is that "absolutes mislead". Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "the interpretation of absolutes misleads"--interpretation being inherently fallible.

(04/14/2008)

So, Absolutes in the Chronicles are about Absolute Truths. Furthermore, there are Absolute Truths, it's just that interpreting them is chancy if not utterly fallible. He also calls this "the inherent destructiveness of moral absolutes", and "the dangers of extremism in the face of dilemmas that appear to demand extreme solutions" (6/16/2005).

But I don't see how you get from here to there. How does this show that good and evil in the chronicles are relative?

It seems to me that the danger of being misled by absolutes is that you end up doing things that are bad - absolutely bad - because you think you are doing good - relatively good. Kevin Landwaster would be the posterchild for this lesson.

Are there any examples of a character or event or action in the story where you think Donaldson is showing us that good an evil are relative?

He certainly had a chance with the Sunbane, for example. Despite its malevolence, it certainly did provide a form of power to the people of the Land, and in turn a form of culture. But, despite the fact that destroying the Sunbane left everyone in the Land lurching in a cultural vaccum - and Donaldson went to some length to make that observation - it was still correct to destroy the Sunbane. It was Evil, despite its few good qualities.

Malik23 wrote:Ok, now to Good and Evil. Just because Foul is an archetype of evil--or even Evil (absolute)--doesn't mean that Covenant doesn't find subjective or relative solutions to that archetype.

That's true again. In the First Chronicles in particular.

Covenant tries several solutions to his problems -- his "bargains". Relatively, they are good solutions, as they solve his problems. But they end up destroying the Land piece by piece. Covenant must in the end pass on the relatively good solutions and choose the one that is absolutely good, despite the personal costs (i.e. relatively bad). Destroy Foul - the (at the time) absolute good choice.

To my mind, this bears out the idea that subjective, relative solutions aren't the answer.

Malik23 wrote:So even if Foul presents a confrontation with the idea or the problem of absolute Evil, that doesn't mean that this is a story purporting that idea

Of course not. I'd never claim that Donaldson is trying to say that good and evil are really absolutes. I'm just saying that, within the story, they are that way. Evil, in the story, IS external, and so it IS unambiguously, undiluted Evil. Such evil isn't real, I understand.

But, like a lab experiment where you create something purer than possible in the natural world and then see how it behaves, there is something that you can learn and take away from performing the exercise. And so a story of absolute good and evil speaks to us, despite the unreality of absolute good and evil.