Kevin's Watch

Steve: I just read Runes of the Earth and I want you to know how disappointed I am that you used profanity in your writings. You have always been one of my favorite authors, and I always recommended you to other people. I even had a hope in my heart that my children could one day enjoy your books as I have. After 20 years of waiting, imagine my shock to see the curse words you used. I mean, Linden Avery cursing? You are better than this. One question: Why? Please help me to regain respect for you and your work, at least so that I can enjoy this series somewhat. By the way, I whited out all the profanity so that this book could be in "proper" Covenant form.

Sincerely,
Disappointed fan

I shouldn't touch this. It's a lose/lose proposition. I won't be able to persuade you; and I may well increase your sense of disappointment. But I'm going to plunge in anyway ("Fools rush" etc.) because the subject interests me--and because you aren't alone in your reaction.

First, I think we need to make an important distinction. The "Covenant" books have always contained *profanity* ("Hellfire and bloody damnation": need I say more?). The real difference between the first six books and "The Runes of the Earth" (primarily the Prologue) is *obscenity*, which I will loosely define as "crude and hurtful references to bodily functions, organs, and actions." For example, the "F" word in various permutations.

In the abstract, it seems to me that profanity is inherently more violent, vehement, and hurtful than obscenity. Consigning someone else to "the eternal fires of hell" (e.g. "Damn you") is (conceptually) *worse* than accusing someone else of unnatural physical acts.

In practice, however, virtually everyone (myself included) reacts more strongly to obscenity than to profanity.

I think this is true because obscenity is more, well, *real* than profanity. Most of us simply cannot wrap our minds around "the eternal fires of hell," but we all have way too much (intimate) experience with bodily violence, bodily crudeness, and even bodily perversion. As an idea, profanity may be "worse" than obscenity, but as a tangible experience obscenity is unquestionably "worse".

Of course, none of the above pertains directly to your disappointment. The "distinction" doesn't matter to you: only the "fact" matters to you. And the "fact" is that "The Runes of the Earth" contains more "offensive" language (primarily in the Prologue) than the previous six "Covenant" books combined.

So why did I do it? I have two reasons, one general, one specific.

In general, and as a matter of personal conviction, I do not believe that *any* word is inherently good or bad, benign or hurtful, acceptable or offensive. Words are simply the tools of communication; and as a dedicated storyteller with extremely high aspirations, I can not afford to reject--or even judge--*any* of the tools available to me. As far as I can tell, what makes a word good or bad, benign or hurtful, acceptable or offensive, is the *intent* of the person who uses it.

Which brings me to the specific. I consider it important to distinguish between *my* intent and the intent of the character I'm writing about. Barton Lytton is a useful example. *My* intent is to tell the truth about him, using every tool at my disposal: to do anything less would betray my own aspirations. *His* intent is to express his anger, humiliation, and feelings of intimidation toward Linden: he wants to regain some sense of personal authority, and even of personal worth, by attacking the person who has most strenuously criticized him. And how else can he *do* that? He's the sheriff: he can't exactly beat her up. He can't expose her as a professional sham, or prove that she obstructed a criminal investigation, or find personal skeletons in her closet. How else could he possibly strike back, except through language? He uses obscenity (and profanity) because he *wants* to hurt her. His language is offensive, not because the words themselves are offensive, but because he *intends* to offend.

And that's the truth: some people *do* want to hurt others, and they don't care how they do it.

(It's also an observable fact that people who use profanity and obscenity tend to elicit profanity and obscenity from others. Intense emotion or action elicits intense emotion or action *of the same kind* in response.)

So I ask you: what would the effect be if I "cleaned up" Barton Lytton; if I made him less offensive in his conduct, therefore more comfortable to read about? Wouldn't that constitute *lying*? Wouldn't that imply that human evil isn't *really* as bad as we all know it is? Certainly circumlocution can convey the same information as direct utterance, but it doesn't have the same impact. And if the "Covenant" books contain any message at all, surely that message is that the desire to cause pain *does* have impact.

(04/02/2006)

Jason D. Wittman: Dear Mr. Donaldson,

I just read the post in this GI about who would win a Gandalf vs. Covenant battle. In your reply, you made an interesting point that Gandalf does not "save the world" so much as motivate certain people and set plans in motion so that the world is saved by the hobbits, whereas Covenant takes a more direct hand in matters. I think an equally interesting comparison would be Sauron vs. Lord Foul. Aside from Foul being the more operatic of the two villains--he only makes a few appearances throughout the Chronicles, but they are big appearances, while Sauron is never seen, only talked about (one of the few things about LOTR that I find disappointing)--the biggest difference is their motivations. Sauron strives for conquest, while Lord Foul strives for destruction. Is that inaccurate?

One more thing: you have said that Lord Foul (or at least your perception of him) has changed over the years. He is no longer the incarnation of Ee-vil that we met in LFB. So is he still the Lord Foul who "laughs at lepers", as Covenant says of him in The Wounded Land? Just curious.

Hope this finds you well.

Jason

Your Sauron/LF analysis seems accurate to me. I'm no expert on Sauron; but LF can't get what he wants without the destruction of "reality as we know it".

Regardless of whatever I may or may not have said about LF as "the incarnation of Ee-vil" (the memory is the first thing to go--by which I mean that once it goes you no longer remember losing anything else <sigh>), he's still a contemptuous SOB. Finite beings are just so *puny*.... If he didn't laugh at lepers, he'd probably have to kill himself--except no, he can't do that because he's immortal.

(btw, "immortal" for LF and "immortal" for the Elohim are two entirely different concepts. The Elohim are immortal *within the Arch of Time*. If time no longer exists, they won't either. LF doesn't have that problem.)

(04/12/2006)

john p. ostrander jr: i have just finished "runes of the earth" and you have outdone yourself once again! i never thought you would write "the last chronicles" but am so glad you are! you have left me groveling for "revenant" so please hurry but don't skimp! my 2 questions: " what has allowed lord foul to gain strength to endanger the land once again and what will be the titles of the last 3 books of the last chronicles?" thank you!

The Despiser is an immortal being. He's always going to find his way back to strength in one form or another. That form may vary according to the circumstances in which he finds himself. But since he can't be killed, he's bound to return.

(And it's always theoretically possible that his servants work to restore him--or that he draws new energy from other evils, like the lurker of the Sarangrave, or from banes still hidden deep in the Earth.)

The next book in "The Last Chronicles" will be "Fatal Revenant." (Information is posted under "news" on this site.) After that comes "Should Pass Utterly" and "The Last Dark."

(04/13/2006)

dlbpharmd wrote:

john p. ostrander jr: i have just finished "runes of the earth" and you have outdone yourself once again! i never thought you would write "the last chronicles" but am so glad you are! you have left me groveling for "revenant" so please hurry but don't skimp! my 2 questions: " what has allowed lord foul to gain strength to endanger the land once again and what will be the titles of the last 3 books of the last chronicles?" thank you!

The Despiser is an immortal being. He's always going to find his way back to strength in one form or another. That form may vary according to the circumstances in which he finds himself. But since he can't be killed, he's bound to return.

(And it's always theoretically possible that his servants work to restore him--or that he draws new energy from other evils, like the lurker of the Sarangrave, or from banes still hidden deep in the Earth.)

The next book in "The Last Chronicles" will be "Fatal Revenant." (Information is posted under "news" on this site.) After that comes "Should Pass Utterly" and "The Last Dark."

(04/13/2006)

I thought it was "Shall Pass Utterly."

Fist & Faith: Would it be fair to say the Creator isn't particularly worried about Foul escaping his prison; rather, he doesn't want his creation destroyed in the process? I say this not just because he was powerful enough to imprison Foul in the first place, but also because he cannot enter the Arch of Time without destroying it - presumably because it couldn't contain his puissance (heh) - while it holds Foul quite easily.

Certainly the "background assumptions" of the "Chronicles" seem to imply that at one time (before the Earth was created) LF occupied the same version of eternity that the Creator does. If the Creator was OK with *that*, we can probably infer that he (He?) doesn't really care about keeping LF prisoner: he cares about his creation. In fact, if he could do so without destroying Time, he might conceivably set LF free just to spare his creation more pain.

Two points. 1) Don't confuse "breaking in" with "breaking out". Those are two ENTIRELY different problems. They pertain to the nature of existence, eternal vs temporal--a distinction which I perceive to be vital, but which (sadly) surpasses my poor powers of explication.

2) It's worth asking, What's creation *for*? What was the Creator hoping to accomplish when he made the Earth?

(04/19/2006)

Anonymous: I don't think this would be a spoiler, but is it safe to say that

Spoiler

the "Revenant" in "Fatal Revenant" is Thomas Covenant? I am assuming that "revenant" in this case is defined as someone who is brought back to life to fullfill a special goal.

____________________

That would definitely be a spoiler for someone who hasn't read "The Runes of the Earth." But it seems to me that you're making a very reasonable assumption.

(04/19/2006)

Avatar wrote:Nice one Fist.