Can someone explain TC's "bargain" to me?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

The "nevertheless" and "still" quotes pertained to caring, not loving. And Covenant refused the mantel of hero. It was never Covenant's goal to be a hero, but only to survive the dream. And finally he decided that if it required using wild magic to bring Foul's Creche down around his ears, so be it. It is possible for Covenant to do this while remaining an Unbeliever - that is what the "nevertheless" and "still" quotes pertained to in his debate with the Despiser. Many things are possible even without the capacity for love.

I'll admit this much, that the section of TPTP you are referring to contains the word "love."

TC - "Because I love the Land."

I take it this means an "engaged commitment" more along the lines of caring. And Donaldson stated somewhere that it was a form of caring. Covenant is now "wedded" to the Land, but they sleep in separate beds.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Upon reflection, I see a difference between passionate thus dangerous love, and this caring kind of love, in the distinction between man as a futile passion and man as an effective passion.

A futile passion, I would say, is one in which the heart informs the mind; an effective passion is one in which the mind informs the heart. Covenant is an intelligent person who writes deep and well-thought out novels. He finds himself in a kind of novelesque-situation and tries various ways to out-think the emotional response it elicits. Bargaining is one of the ways. Finally, he learns the proper way to out-think, or out-smart, the dream. While stoicism, which worked in the real world, cannot work in the Land because of its beauty, the answer is not to go the opposite way toward becoming entangled in the various passions the Land elicits. Covenant learns to love, or care about, the Land without losing his life in the real world. Allowing his head to rule the heart, Covenant's repressed passion for the Land is converted to effectiveness rather than futility.

[peter]

Covenant, lepers, cannot afford to love, their very survival depends on a form of rigid self-denying stoicism.

Now let's get this clear. 'Can't', or 'Can't afford to'? Two totally different things, so far appart in meaning and implication that to conflate them is to render any argument meaningless.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Covenant, lepers, cannot afford to love, their very survival depends on a form of rigid self-denying stoicism.

Now let's get this clear. 'Can't', or 'Can't afford to'? Two totally different things, so far appart in meaning and implication that to conflate them is to render any argument meaningless.

You're quoting me out of context, so I don't think you finished reading my comment.

I am not saying that lepers lose the ability to love just as they lose the ability to have sensations. The leprosy bacteria do not eat away at emotional nerve endings. But it is just the same as if leprosy had done so.

I am saying that lepers lose the ability to love as if the leprosy had eaten it away permanently. The capacity has to be repressed even though it still exists, but it is lost as permanently as if he had thrown his wedding ring off a bridge into a deep river.

By analogy, in the Land Covenant has the capacity for great power, but it is lost to him somewhere out of reach.

Love is a chaotic, sometimes mad, passion that could kill a leper if allowed to continue unchecked, because it sometimes drives people to do things that risk themselves. So Covenant has to neatly arrange his emotions as he has neatly arranged the furniture in his house, to remove all the emotional "sharp edges" and to make sure he never accidentally stumbles and hurts himself.

This is how I understand Covenant's situation from my reading of the Chrons.

So "cannot afford" and "lose" are closely related here. If someone were to assert that they emotionally "cannot afford" the cost of being married, throwing his wedding ring so far into a river or gorge that it will never be found is symbolic of losing the emotional ties that go with it.

That's why I stated that the Land is no place for lepers, and that Covenant's real world is actually doing him a favor by encouraging such emotional repression. Lepers cannot afford to love, therefore they lose the ability and cannot love. It is not so much a question of having the willpower to refuse love. Love often has a mind and will of its own anyway, it is chaotic as I said, so the best course is just to lose the capacity for it.

Of course in the second Chrons this doesn't matter, Covenant is dead in the real world (Linden told him this at the end of TOT) so he has nothing to lose. The choice becomes to withhold using power because this is what Foul wants, it aids him in the destruction of beauty.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I just don't think this has to be complicated.
TC's bargains are as follows
i) With the Ranyhyn " I won't ride one of you if you will a) try to make reparation for me with a girl I ravaged and b) come and help me out if I really get into the sh*t.

That sounds good.

Yet I wouldn't oversimplify matters. Covenant was afraid of horses, so he didn't want to ride a Ranyhyn anyway. If a plain old horse is threatening to him, how do you think he felt about the Ranyhyn? Terrified.

ii) with himself " This place can't be real - but it can't not be real either. I'll accept this contradictory paradox as long as I can use whatever explanation I need to when I need to in order to preserve my sanity. ie I'll occupy the calm point at the center of the raging storm of impossibilities."

Or perhaps there is another conflict here: "lepers can't love, and yet this beautiful place is trying to draw emotions from me."

I think most people here are missing the point when I discuss this issue. Covenant is not just a person with a disease. Covenant is a LEPER. He IS a leper. Trying to be politically correct about and understanding of Covenant misses the point of the Chrons. Covenant is a "filthy, dirty, scum-of-the-earth leper - and rapist" who in the end happens to make something good of his life. At the beginning of the Chrons at least, the reader is not supposed to identify with Covenant, a leper, and if some readers do, then there is the rape scene to kill any budding empathy that might have existed. It is later in the Chrons that Donaldson slowly manipulates the reader into taking his side.

iii) With the Creator/Old man " I'll go forward with this - go where I am expected to go in order to emerge at the other side, but in return for this you must accept that I will NOT become an active part of it. To do so would compromise my disbelief.

I think this sums up TC's bargains aand thier relationship to each other. Why does it have to be more difficult than that?

The problem with (iii) is this: when Covenant bargains he takes an active role in the Land. Commanding the Ranyhyn to visit Lena is taking an active role. And the bargain with himself concerning Elena required Covenant, by the very terms of his bargain, to take an active role by assisting her in every way possible.

[peter]

[quote="TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd]The problem with (iii) is this: when Covenant bargains he takes an active role in the Land. Commanding the Ranyhyn to visit Lena is taking an active role. And the bargain with himself concerning Elena required Covenant, by the very terms of his bargain, to take an active role by assisting her in every way possible.[/quote]
This is a fair comment.
I am not sure that I go along with the 'can't afford to...' being the same as 'lose...', though I do see the direction that it is coming from. It seems to me that when somone can't afford to do something (in the emotional sense) the likelyhood is that that thing will become even 'sharper' to them than it would otherwise be (there is a comparability with the 'give them something back broken' thing here). ie It will become not so much lost as turned on it's head, turned from a thing of beauty and redemption into a dangerouse snare (which of course is what you are saying) and ever more present - and threatening - thereby. AND of couse, some WILL sucumbe to the lure EVEN THOUGH they cant afford to. (Haven't worked out how to 'italicise' words I want to emphasize yet - sorry the capitals look so cumbersome )

[thewormoftheworld'send]

[quote="TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd]The problem with (iii) is this: when Covenant bargains he takes an active role in the Land. Commanding the Ranyhyn to visit Lena is taking an active role. And the bargain with himself concerning Elena required Covenant, by the very terms of his bargain, to take an active role by assisting her in every way possible.

This is a fair comment.
I am not sure that I go along with the 'can't afford to...' being the same as 'lose...', though I do see the direction that it is coming from. It seems to me that when somone can't afford to do something (in the emotional sense) the likelyhood is that that thing will become even 'sharper' to them than it would otherwise be (there is a comparability with the 'give them something back broken' thing here). ie It will become not so much lost as turned on it's head, turned from a thing of beauty and redemption into a dangerouse snare (which of course is what you are saying) and ever more present - and threatening - thereby. AND of couse, some WILL sucumbe to the lure EVEN THOUGH they cant afford to. (Haven't worked out how to 'italicise' words I want to emphasize yet - sorry the capitals look so cumbersome )[/quote]

I would just use [ i ] text [ /i ].

Stoicism is a school of philosophy devoted to the denial of emotion (in some interpretations). So it's not as if there isn't some precedent for Covenant in the non-leprosy world.

My point however can be held up by the Covenant quote I gave earlier.

"I can't use it!" he shouted lornly, as if the ring were still a symbol of marriage, not a talisman of wild magic.

It is significant that Donaldson mentioned marriage here, which includes emotions such as love, and the fact that Covenant use the words "can't use it" rather than "can't afford to use it."

[thewormoftheworld'send]

[quote="TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd]The problem with (iii) is this: when Covenant bargains he takes an active role in the Land. Commanding the Ranyhyn to visit Lena is taking an active role. And the bargain with himself concerning Elena required Covenant, by the very terms of his bargain, to take an active role by assisting her in every way possible.

This is a fair comment.
I am not sure that I go along with the 'can't afford to...' being the same as 'lose...', though I do see the direction that it is coming from. It seems to me that when somone can't afford to do something (in the emotional sense) the likelyhood is that that thing will become even 'sharper' to them than it would otherwise be (there is a comparability with the 'give them something back broken' thing here). ie It will become not so much lost as turned on it's head, turned from a thing of beauty and redemption into a dangerouse snare (which of course is what you are saying) and ever more present - and threatening - thereby. AND of couse, some WILL sucumbe to the lure EVEN THOUGH they cant afford to. (Haven't worked out how to 'italicise' words I want to emphasize yet - sorry the capitals look so cumbersome )

I would just use [ i ] text [ /i ].

Stoicism is a school of philosophy devoted to the denial of emotion (in some interpretations). So it's not as if there isn't some precedent for Covenant in the non-leprosy world.

My point however can be held up by the Covenant quote I gave earlier.

"I can't use it!" he shouted lornly, as if the ring were still a symbol of marriage, not a talisman of wild magic.

It is significant that Donaldson mentioned marriage here, which includes emotions such as love, and the fact that Covenant use the words "can't use it" rather than "can't afford to use it." The passion that fuels love is extinguished, lepers can't afford to have passion so they lose the ability to love. If he had the ability then the white gold would not have been locked from him. There is a similar situation with the Oath of Peace which kept the krill of Loric a mystery to the new lords.

[Vraith]

It is significant that Donaldson mentioned marriage here, which includes emotions such as love, and the fact that Covenant use the words "can't use it" rather than "can't afford to use it." The passion that fuels love is extinguished, lepers can't afford to have passion so they lose the ability to love. If he had the ability then the white gold would not have been locked from him. There is a similar situation with the Oath of Peace which kept the krill of Loric a mystery to the new lords.

I might be playing the same note...but I wouldn't say extinguished, I'd say boxed up, or walled off.
I agree completely about the Oath parallel, though. The Oath and TC's discipline even have a parallel cause.

And Peter: you can use what Worm said to italicise, or you can highlight words you want, then click the "i" button just below subject line above where you type your messages in. [spoiler, bold, undeline, quotes there, too]. OR click the 'i' button, type click the 'i' again to stop italics.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

It is significant that Donaldson mentioned marriage here, which includes emotions such as love, and the fact that Covenant use the words "can't use it" rather than "can't afford to use it." The passion that fuels love is extinguished, lepers can't afford to have passion so they lose the ability to love. If he had the ability then the white gold would not have been locked from him. There is a similar situation with the Oath of Peace which kept the krill of Loric a mystery to the new lords.

I might be playing the same note...but I wouldn't say extinguished, I'd say boxed up, or walled off.
I agree completely about the Oath parallel, though. The Oath and TC's discipline even have a parallel cause.

I used a fire analogy for a good reason: the use of white gold always seems to involve flames.

[peter]

Vraith's 'walled up' does it better for me than the 'extinguished' of WOTWE but (and I do see where it is coming from) I just have this problem with the equating the 'loss of the ability to love' with the 'can't afford to have passion'. TC's passion is to me as Vraith say's, 'walled up' (somewhat like the haruchai's) but even more dangerous thereby. And the whole thing about the ring is that he is wrong - he CAN use the ring, just as he CAN love - all he needs is to be shown how which the Land and it's inhabitants increasingly do. In this sense TC needs to ditch his discipline (just as the Lords need to ditch the OAP re Loric's krill) in order to move forward and meet his/the Lands needs.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Vraith's 'walled up' does it better for me than the 'extinguished' of WOTWE but (and I do see where it is coming from) I just have this problem with the equating the 'loss of the ability to love' with the 'can't afford to have passion'. TC's passion is to me as Vraith say's, 'walled up' (somewhat like the haruchai's) but even more dangerous thereby. And the whole thing about the ring is that he is wrong - he CAN use the ring, just as he CAN love - all he needs is to be shown how which the Land and it's inhabitants increasingly do. In this sense TC needs to ditch his discipline (just as the Lords need to ditch the OAP re Loric's krill) in order to move forward and meet his/the Lands needs.

I don't think Covenant can use the ring. Every time he does it involved some trigger. There is only the one occasion I can think of, toward the beginning of LFB, when Covenant stopped Drool's thunderstorm. But it wasn't on purpose, he didn't even know he did anything.

[Relayer]

Spoiler

I think of it like the way Linden is in ROTE and FR... she *can* use the ring, but often has to go inside to find the door that unlocks it. Sometimes she can and sometimes she can't (or is blocked).

The difference with Covenant in the First Chrons is that he doesn't want to believe that he's able to use it, and so doesn't try to find a way.

[Zarathustra]

The difference with Covenant in the First Chrons is that he doesn't want to believe that he's able to use it, and so doesn't try to find a way.

He takes a much more active approach than merely "not trying to find a way." He actively avoids the power (and implications) of his ring ... except for those few times he does allow himself to use it. It's more than merely not taking the trouble to learn how to use it, but rather an aversion. It's the same aversion he has for believing in the Land: he thinks it's a misleading seduction to which he can't afford to give in. Giving in to the Land (or his power/passion) is allowing himself to hope. And a leper cannot hope. He has willfully sealed off his own passions from himself, like the Oath of Peace, because he thinks they are dangerous and seductive. He has steeled himself to living by the Law of Leprosy, which basically turns him into an injury-avoidance machine, instead of a human being.

It's a subtle difference, but I feel a very important one. Vraith is one the right track here. Covenant's dilemma in the plot--his struggling to come to grips with his role as a white gold wielder--is exactly the same dilemma as his personal coming to grips with being a functional, passionate, creative human being again.

[Relayer]

I agree... that's why I said "he doesn't want to believe..."

[peter]

I agree... that's why I said "he doesn't want to believe..."

This accords with my way of seeing TC - his " I can't use it" is self delusion - I am not sure that I believe he is active in this though - otherwise it would be mere self-serving deception. I see it as more an act of unconscious self-preservation, however miguided. And surely one of the main messages of the story is that there is always hope - it just has to be found sometimes.

[wayfriend]

"I can't use it" is not exactly correct either. There's the matter of the subtle subterfuge of the heart. To some extent, not wanting to use the ring and being unable to use the ring are the same thing. And there were times, such as for example when he jumped into the crevasse after Kevin and Elena, when he consciously wanted to weild the ring, but still could not.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"I can't use it" is not exactly correct either. There's the matter of the subtle subterfuge of the heart. To some extent, not wanting to use the ring and being unable to use the ring are the same thing. And there were times, such as for example when he jumped into the crevasse after Kevin and Elena, when he consciously wanted to weild the ring, but still could not.

Covenant didn't have a chance to even try, he was knocked unconscious almost immediately. But you've got to admit, it was a gutsy thing to do.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"I can't use it" is not exactly correct either. There's the matter of the subtle subterfuge of the heart. To some extent, not wanting to use the ring and being unable to use the ring are the same thing.

I've come up with a new Law to deal with this situation you describe. I call it the Law of Leprosy.

Covenant can feel love just as dead Hollian can be brought back to life. The gap is not insurmountable. But in order to do so, Covenant has to break his personal Law of Leprosy.

[Vraith]

"I can't use it" is not exactly correct either. There's the matter of the subtle subterfuge of the heart. To some extent, not wanting to use the ring and being unable to use the ring are the same thing.

I've come up with a new Law to deal with this situation you describe. I call it the Law of Leprosy.

Covenant can feel love just as dead Hollian can be brought back to life. The gap is not insurmountable. But in order to do so, Covenant has to break his personal Law of Leprosy.

That is a very nice, succinct, statement.
And wasn't a major theme that he should do exactly that?
[a whole bunch of quibbles, explanation, questions, examination, exposition, consequences NOT following...have fun]