Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:12 pm
I was going to search for it, but I don't know which book is most likely to contain it. Also, whenever I start looking things up, I end up reading the books again.
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
You, too?!?!CovenantJr wrote:Also, whenever I start looking things up, I end up reading the books again.
Have you been reading Foucault or Derrida lately. What a crock. Eventually a hierachy emerges. Dualisms can be deconstructed surely but eventually a moment arrives when one wins if even for a moment.markjeffrey wrote:OK ...
Here's what I think: The theme of overlapping identities seems to be rampant. And the lines between Who is Who seems to be becoming blurrier and blurrier.
For instance: Covenant = Foul. Foul is his dark side. We have had this beaten into our heads for six books now. He is also externalized as a separate entity. BOTH explanations are true: the 'eye of the paradox'.
Now, we have Anele. He is sometimes Anele, sometimes Foul, sometimes Covenant. Then we have whatsisname (my brain is fried from staying up too late reading this past week) who has to be both friend and foe at once -- he can't help you if he can't also stab you in the back, it's his 'nature'. He is divided into two entities within himself, each seeking balance.
So therefore: Covenant IS Covenant. And he's also NOT Covenant. The lines again are blurred. Identities are not constants, they overlap. The boundaries around EVERYTHING are becoming hazier -- witness the Falls. The boundaries between Internal and External realities -- The Land is a dream, the land is real. Both are true. The Falls are Joan's fractured mind, they are also manifested in the external physical Land.
So -- in what SENSE they overlap is still unclear, and Mr. D. is keeping guessing, but to me, its clear already that the 'players' in the Land are not completely seperate and distinct entities anymore, and cannot be regarded as It Is Covenant, It Is Not Covenant. The question has no meaning unless you affirm both polar opposites, and stand in the eye of the paradox.
So THAT'S where Hierachy came from!Have you been reading Foucault or Derrida lately. What a crock. Eventually a hierachy emerges.
Hmmm...."His eyes were exactly the right color..." (So Linden couldn't tell by his eyes that it was not Covenant.)Andyet--
If he were clay, only a slice or two with the sculptor's tool, only a line of severity on
either side of his mouth, and his cheeks would look as strict as commandments. A
squint of old suffering at the corners of his eyes: a little grey dust tro add years to his
hair. His eyes themselves were exactly the right color, a disturbed hue like the shade of
madness or prophecy. Oh, he could have been his father, if he had not been so young
and unmarked. If he had paid any price as extravagant as his father's--
I mentioned that as well in another post ur-bane. If Foul can disguise himself, then who is to say he could not disguise Roger. SRD has a meaning for the things he writes, he specifically mentioned Rogers eyes in the prolog and Mentions TC's eyes at the very end...Im not sure if it is Roger, but I dont believe in Coincidences.ur-bane wrote:I was re-reading Runes for the third time, and suddenly , having turned the last page and going right back to the first page, I came upon something interesting in the text that I had missed the first 2 readings.
I give you Linden in her office, speaking with Roger Covenant about releasing Joan to Roger.
These are Linden's impressions of Roger, taken directly from page 1:
Hmmm...."His eyes were exactly the right color..." (So Linden couldn't tell by his eyes that it was not Covenant.)Andyet--
If he were clay, only a slice or two with the sculptor's tool, only a line of severity on
either side of his mouth, and his cheeks would look as strict as commandments. A
squint of old suffering at the corners of his eyes: a little grey dust tro add years to his
hair. His eyes themselves were exactly the right color, a disturbed hue like the shade of
madness or prophecy. Oh, he could have been his father, if he had not been so young
and unmarked. If he had paid any price as extravagant as his father's--
Could Foul be the "sculptor"? Could it be Roger, after all, sculpted by Foul to resemble his father in such a way as to fool even the most familiar of people?
What did he say about Covenant's eyes?brinn18 wrote:SRD has a meaning for the things he writes, he specifically mentioned Rogers eyes in the prolog and Mentions TC's eyes at the very end...Im not sure if it is Roger, but I dont believe in Coincidences.
When I say he, I am referring to SRD. At the end of Runes Linden thinks to herself, something like "the man riding beside Jeremiah, his eyes flashing with determination, was unmistakably Thomas Covenant." I dont have my book with me, but it was something along those lines I believe.burgs66 wrote:What did he say about Covenant's eyes?brinn18 wrote:SRD has a meaning for the things he writes, he specifically mentioned Rogers eyes in the prolog and Mentions TC's eyes at the very end...Im not sure if it is Roger, but I dont believe in Coincidences.
Now this might be getting really picky, but Jeremiah is her son "beyond question". The other stranger is "unmistakably" TC. Those are not the same comments. One says definitively that it's Jeremiah. The other simply means "very distinctive". Ugh, I'm getting a head ache.One was Jeremiah; her son beyond question. As the Master's mount pounded the dirt, the boy waved his arms, urging the horse to run faster, and shouted encouragment to the other riders.
Even from so far away, Linden could see that his eyes were afire with excitement. [my comment: This is referring to Jeremiah, because TC hasn't been mentioned yet]
The other stranger was unmistably Thomas Covenant.