Kevin's Watch

Zarathustra wrote: In The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the literal is the real world (and its characters), while the metaphorical is the Land (and its characters). For She to realize that She is Joan would be comparable to shattering the Arch of Time, because it would collapse the distinction which is holding the real world and the Land separate. For most of the Chronicles, we could assume that the separation between the two worlds is metaphysical within the story itself, because of Covenant's Unbelief. But it is merely metaphorical, and all it would take for that to become an explict fact would be to admit it in the text ... in other words, to reveal that She's name is a character from the real world.

You're really enjoying this recent kick on metaphorical/literal becoming one, aren't you? I like it, or at least find as a critical viewpoint it bears fruit applied to the text.
But...I think in effect one of the central conflicts/dangers in the worlds is due to what you propose being/becoming true. If the worlds have any chance of surviving...or even a fragment where beauty is possible...the metaphorical/literal must, literally remain separate. If LF/TC are one [or SHE/Joan]...still the mystical/mysterious identities between the worlds have to remain mystical/mysterious. IF the externalized LF/TC in the Land becomes an internalized LF/TC unity...or the opposite...the internalized "despite is part of me" of the real world becomes an externalized thing in the real world...that is the eternal ending without hope.
It's ok, for instance to say a physical triangle and a mathematical one encompass each other, are the same, in one way...a way that is less than literally so, but more than just metaphorically so. BUT to somehow put a physical triangle into the mathematical realm, or vice versa, something HAS to break.
And, as a speculation, I think this is at least part of the reason/necessity for the real world characters to all be dead in the real world.

TheFallen wrote:I don't think She needs to realise She is Joan - it would be enough for the reader to have this made clear to him/her beyond doubt. That would finally collapse *our* ambivalence about the existence of dual metaphysical realities. The Arch of Time preserving *our* potential credence in the Land as a separate reality would shatter - I'm back to Verfremdungseffekten and breaking the fourth wall again.

I think that's possible, too. It may be even more likely than Joan realizing it, because it wouldn't collapse anything. However, I don't see how Joan can have have resolution without realizing her own inner Bane, just like Covenant had to realize his own inner Despiser.

Vraith wrote: You're really enjoying this recent kick on metaphorical/literal becoming one, aren't you?

Yes, yes I am. Maybe I'm off base, but I don't think there can be a better example for this than the danger in naming SheWho, i.e. collapsing her universality into a particular. She's undeniably a symbol--we know this because of her universality and deliberate ambiguity--and yet it's a symbol which is in danger of its own translation into that which is symbolized, i.e. naming. You can think of this the Platonic sense, if you don't want to think in terms of metaphorical/literal. Universals vs particulars. Donaldson himself has referenced Platonic realism in describing the reality of the Land, so it wouldn't be too far off base. When I say, "literal/metaphorical," this is actually what I have in mind.

Vraith wrote:If the worlds have any chance of surviving...or even a fragment where beauty is possible...the metaphorical/literal must, literally remain separate.

But what is the nature of that separation? TheFallen pointed out one: only in how we look at it. The distinction can remain, while we collapse it conceptually ourselves. Plato and Aristotle (and much of the entire subsequent history of philosophy) argued back and forth about where to draw the "lines," what the lines meant, how exactly the particulars partake in the universals, etc. The point is that they're already connected. I'm not sure why they must "literally" remain separate. Maybe the truth is in the paradox: how they are both connected and separate (or at least distinct) at the same time.

Or maybe this imperative you mention is the same thing Donaldson means when he says that naming Her would be similar to collapsing the Arch. Maybe he, too, thinks it shouldn't be done.

Vraith wrote:It's ok, for instance to say a physical triangle and a mathematical one encompass each other, are the same, in one way...a way that is less than literally so, but more than just metaphorically so. BUT to somehow put a physical triangle into the mathematical realm, or vice versa, something HAS to break.

Ah, I see you already are thinking in Platonic terms. Awesome. Great minds, eh? But does something have to break? Maybe Aristotle was right, and Plato was wrong. Or they're both right.

Zarathustra wrote: Or maybe this imperative you mention is the same thing Donaldson means when he says that naming Her would be similar to collapsing the Arch. Maybe he, too, thinks it shouldn't be done.

Vraith wrote:It's ok, for instance to say a physical triangle and a mathematical one encompass each other, are the same, in one way...a way that is less than literally so, but more than just metaphorically so. BUT to somehow put a physical triangle into the mathematical realm, or vice versa, something HAS to break.

Ah, I see you already are thinking in Platonic terms. Awesome. Great minds, eh? But does something have to break? Maybe Aristotle was right, and Plato was wrong. Or they're both right.

Yes, I do think that that is why Mr. D. said it, and how he meant it. I've posted elsewhere that a prime root/conflict of Chron's is the imposition of the Ideal into the material.
And your question, and the Aristotilian/Platonic you mention encapsulate my main philosophical reason for reading on [I have other kinds of reasons, too]...I can't see how to resolve it, [well, I actually can...I just don't LIKE any of my possible resolutions] and I very much want to see what he does with it.
One thing I think many of us will end up being wrong about [including some of my older thoughts]: The duality relationships [LF/TC, SHE/Joan] are too simple, going to end up more like trinities...the "eye of paradox" isn't going to be so much a conceptual stance/attitude/position/acceptance you take; it is a thing/material/reality in itself.

Vraith wrote:I've posted elsewhere that a prime root/conflict of Chron's is the imposition of the Ideal into the material.

Damn Vraith, that's one of the most interesting posts on this series I've read. I would very much like to read those posts you've mentioned.

Vraith wrote:The duality relationships [LF/TC, SHE/Joan] are too simple, going to end up more like trinities...the "eye of paradox" isn't going to be so much a conceptual stance/attitude/position/acceptance you take; it is a thing/material/reality in itself.

But without consciousness, there is no paradox. That's why I said on the last page that self-referentiality is the root of the paradox. It's not just for logic or formal systems (re: Godel, Cantor, Russell, etc.). It's also what makes matter and the physical universe paradoxical. The ideal "gets into" the material via consciousness ... or consciousness is what reveals that it's already there. We can even talk about quantum mechanics: without the observer, there is no measurement problem, or the problem of where/how the quantum proxy wave collapses, or the problem of the nature of reality when we're not looking, etc. The eye of the paradox is deeply involved in a "conceptual stance/attitude/position/acceptance you take," because we can either be authentic to it, or not. But the thing which allows us to have this relationship to it in the first place is consciousness itself.

Okay now this is getting <b><u><i>seriously</i></u></b> philosophical. Since the collapse of the quantum proxy wave has been called into evidence, in similar vein, I'll force the somewhat less fashionable concept of relativity into the mix as well . If nobody minds, I'll stitch together some relevant post snippets:-

TheFallen wrote:I don't think She needs to realise She is Joan - it would be enough for the reader to have this made clear to him/her beyond doubt. That would finally collapse *our* ambivalence about the existence of dual metaphysical realities. The Arch of Time preserving *our* potential credence in the Land as a separate reality would shatter - I'm back to Verfremdungseffekten and breaking the fourth wall again.

Vraith wrote:If the worlds have any chance of surviving...or even a fragment where beauty is possible...the metaphorical/literal must, literally remain separate. If LF/TC are one [or SHE/Joan]...still the mystical/mysterious identities between the worlds have to remain mystical/mysterious. IF the externalized LF/TC in the Land becomes an internalized LF/TC unity...or the opposite...the internalized "despite is part of me" of the real world becomes an externalized thing in the real world...that is the eternal ending without hope.

Zarathustra wrote:But what is the nature of that separation? TheFallen pointed out one: only in how we look at it. The distinction can remain, while we collapse it conceptually ourselves. Plato and Aristotle (and much of the entire subsequent history of philosophy) argued back and forth about where to draw the "lines," what the lines meant, how exactly the particulars partake in the universals, etc. The point is that they're already connected. I'm not sure why they must "literally" remain separate. Maybe the truth is in the paradox: how they are both connected and separate (or at least distinct) at the same time.

Vraith wrote:The "eye of paradox" isn't going to be so much a conceptual stance/attitude/position/acceptance you take; it is a thing/material/reality in itself.

Zarathustra wrote:But without consciousness, there is no paradox. That's why I said on the last page that self-referentiality is the root of the paradox. It's not just for logic or formal systems (re: Godel, Cantor, Russell, etc.). It's also what makes matter and the physical universe paradoxical. The ideal "gets into" the material via consciousness ... or consciousness is what reveals that it's already there. We can even talk about quantum mechanics: without the observer, there is no measurement problem, or the problem of where/how the quantum proxy wave collapses, or the problem of the nature of reality when we're not looking, etc. The eye of the paradox is deeply involved in a "conceptual stance/attitude/position/acceptance you take," because we can either be authentic to it, or not. But the thing which allows us to have this relationship to it in the first place is consciousness itself.

To me, it is a tripartite relationship between the ideal itself, the point upon which the observer stands (there's your relativity) *and* the act of observation, thus pulling the ideal into the material (and there's your quantum). I don't actually see an incompatibility between your two views - isn't the triangle (or the eye of the paradox, if you'd rather) the nature of the ideal (or objective thing/material/reality), the position of the observer (or sujectivity) and the act of observation (or consciousness)? Act of observation does collapse the quantum wave, but that doesn't necessarily change the nature of the absolute, just our perception of it temporarily - until we look away again (or move position). That is why the Arch of Time may metaphorically be broken for us as readers/observers, but not literally for the Land.

(Again this conversation should really be being held in a smoky French cafe at about 2:00 in the morning, with the participants being fuelled by espressos and Disques Bleues and accompanied by soft experimental jazz...)

Interesting thread.... a few thoughts.

Diassomer Mininderain is an interesting name and SRD seldom picks names out of a phone book. I think if we understand this name we might get some insight into the role she plays. Something about the name invokes a "giantish" feel for me and the poems references to "Masters wife" and "mate of might" could be interepreted in a giantish context.

Has anyone considered that SWMNBN is a composite of women, much like the Mahdoubts clothing was a composite of patches given her...... (by women?).

A simpler concept might be that "she" may be Covenant's leprosy? This was mentioned up thread in the context of Joan and betrayal, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the land with all its demons being a representation of Covenant's psyche.

Could the Ravers be the children mentioned in the poem, offspring of "she" and Lord Foul perhaps? There is a theme of "offspring" playing significant parts in the events of the Las Chronicles.


As I sadi random thoughts kicked up by the thread which I am enjoying immensely. An excellent question rdhopeca.

Wasn't she Rumpole's wife?

seriously interesting thread. makes me wish id gone to university and expanded my brain a bit more lol
just a question, what about Elena? TC makes a comment that he is not above confronting SWMNBN for his daughters sake? she was ideal 'Food" does this help your metaphysical musings any?

Whatever TC has actually done regarding SWMNBN, Elena IS his daughter and one who in many ways was a product of his weakness and a reflection of his guilt, in short he feels he owes her. I suspect that his actions in this are to put her to rest or at least create the circumstances where she can find peace. I suspect Joan's demise is the same.

However TC has now eliminated two members of his family and has one more to go...............I can't help the feeling that the theme of offspring and the impending doom of the Land have some connection along the lines of passing the torch from one generation to the next. Maybe TC is clearing the way for a chosen torchbearer; a new generation for a new Land?

finn wrote:Whatever TC has actually done regarding SWMNBN, Elena IS his daughter and one who in many ways was a product of his weakness and a reflection of his guilt, in short he feels he owes her. I suspect that his actions in this are to put her to rest or at least create the circumstances where she can find peace. I suspect Joan's demise is the same.

However TC has now eliminated two members of his family and has one more to go...............I can't help the feeling that the theme of offspring and the impending doom of the Land have some connection along the lines of passing the torch from one generation to the next. Maybe TC is clearing the way for a chosen torchbearer; a new generation for a new Land?

On the first, I wish I had the book handy...but I don't think TC has a place in the current Elena action, not his choice; it is her choice/breaking free/attempt at self-redemption...but I'll have to re-read to decide is she chose out of hope or despair.

On the second...I think so, at least something metaphorically like that.

If we go with the dream aspect and the Despiser is TC, Swmnbn is Joan, then are the Ravers Roger? Before the third series, I'd say they were more the good samaritans who pay his bills, cleanse his property with fire and offer free razor blade with every third bun, but since we now have the construct of the son grown out of self-loathing parents, perhaps the shoe fits?