Kevin's Watch

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I have a strange question about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it pertains to the logic of the Last Chronicles. Earlier in the GI, you have said: ". . . I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down). . ." Well, the *truth* about the 2nd Law is that it implies an "arrow of time," a specific direction in which time flows. For this reason, we usually see things like cups falling to the floor and breaking, rather than shattered cups rising from the floor and spontaneously assembling themselves. The only time we'd witness such a reversal of entropy would be if we were watching a movie played in reverse.

So my question is this: if the Arch of Time is eventually broken, then won't the *arrow* of time also be broken? If the linear sequence of events no longer needs to flow in one direction, won't entropy be undone?

You have also said: ". . . it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process [of entropy] as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can."

So is the breaking of the Arch in itself an unexpected path to redemption? Achieving or fulfilling the "entire purpose of life?"

I like to think that this twisted logic might actually hold the key to the final "twist" at the end of this series--the way in which the Land is destroyed, and yet Lord Foul is defeated. Do I win? Did I guess the ending?

I accept your interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (I'm no physicist, but it sounds right.) And I accept your conclusion that breaking the Arch of Time would break "the *arrow* of time," thus making entropy meaningless. But I don't think that any of us would like the results. As far as I can see, if entropy were rendered moot (by eliminating "the *arrow* of time"), the outcome would be...nothingness. Not freedom, not "redemption," not any concept that has human significance: just non-existence. Because if "the *arrow* of time" isn't pointing "forward," it isn't pointing anywhere, and nothing can ever happen. Ever again.

As a matter of principle, I like "twisted logic." But in this case: sorry, no bonus points for you. <grin>

(09/14/2006)

Fist and Faith wrote:We need to break cups, people! Break them, then grind the pieces to dust, then throw the dust into the wind! Come on, folks, we're burning daylight! Let's get this universe in order!!

dlbpharmd: Would you please share with us your inspirations for the poem "My heart has rooms" from WGW?

Thanks, Don

I would if I had one. As far as I can recall, however, that song seemed to arise pretty naturally from Pitchwife himself (and from his circumstances, of course).

(09/20/2006)

The actual line (from "Lord Kevin's Lament" in TIW) is "did You intend/that beauty and truth should pass utterly from the/Earth?" And yes, that's where I got the title for Covenant 9.

Fist and Faith wrote:OK, I'm on that Should problem.

Fist and Faith wrote:That whole entropy thing's always annoyed me. Everybody always says higher order is, say, a cup, and higher disorder is the cup broken in pieces on the floor. But I think the highest level of order would be if every ultimate-particle (whatever the most basic particle of matter/energy is) was perfectly evenly distributed throughout the universe? We need to break cups, people! Break them, then grind the pieces to dust, then throw the dust into the wind! Come on, folks, we're burning daylight! Let's get this universe in order!!

Malik23 wrote:[I wonder if this is related to caesures being called, falls? ]

kevinswatch wrote:When did he switch it to "Should Pass Utterly"???

In the Gradual Interview wrote:Ossie: This question may cause some discomfort, so I apologise in advance, but it surprised me so I thought I'd have a shot at asking. In a recent GI answer you were asked about the vulnerability/innocence of children as a theme in your writing, and you made the point that you would not consider Lena a "child" in the way that, say, Jeramiah is, because she was not was not "helplessly dependent". I would agree with that. But you then also said that "Lena could have saved herself from Covenant if she had chosen to do so". This is not an accusation, but a clarification: are you saying that Lena in some way "allowed" or "wanted" TC to attack her? Certainly, there was an element of hero-worship there both when TC first arrived in LFB & stll when he returned to the Land some 40 years later. But I always read that passage as Lena being 100% against the rape (obviously), despite any other feelings. Did you intend that some part of Lena wanted what happened? Or are you being more general in that she could have chosen not to go with TC, or run away at any point before the rape?

• You're right: this does make me squirm. <sigh>
  
  First, let me state categorically that I am NOT suggesting that Lena wanted to be raped. Or that any woman wants to be raped. Or that any human being ever asks for or deserves such violence. Covenant (if he were here) would be the first to tell you that his treatment of Lena was both unconscionable and indefensible.
  
  Still, I do believe that Lena made a choice. (After all, she could have just jumped in the river.) A passive and unconscious choice, certainly--but a choice nonetheless. And I believe that people are responsible for their choices, even when those choices are passive and unconscious. To say otherwise is to deny the humanity of the person in question. Sure, Lena did NOT choose to be raped--but she also did NOT choose to fight or flee (or even scream).
  
  (Sidebar. Research by psychologists confirms over and over again that people who choose to fight back--against any rape-like violation--suffer significantly less emotional trauma *afterward* than people who choose to submit, even when the people who fight back suffer more physical damage than those who submit.)
  
  Now. I *assure* you that I do not mean any of this as a criticism of Lena. Far from it. I feel nothing but empathy for her--and outrage at Covenant. But the way I see it, she allowed her near-adulation for Covenant, and her teenage desire to be important to him, to paralyse her, well, let's call them her survival instincts. And her choice is full of meaning. (At least it is for me.) First, it underscores the nature of Covenant's crime (and of his own unconscious impulse to side with the Despiser). Second, it is emblematic of the acceptance and tolerance with which the people of the Land treat Covenant--even when that acceptance and tolerance involve severe self-sacrifice. And third, it reveals--in the most intimate and personal way possible--what acceptance and tolerance can COST. Thus (I think) it shows the sheer *scale* of the risk that the Lords (and Atiaran) take when they choose trust and hope over retribution.
  
  I hope this answers your question.
  
  (09/21/2006)