Page 1 of 1
Wouldn't the entrapment of Lord Foul destroy time?
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:57 pm
by aTOMiC
".. into the infinity before Time was made came the Creator like a worker into his workshop. And since it is the nature of creating to desire perfection, the Creator devoted all himself to the task.
First he built the arch of Time, so that his creation would have a place in which to be - and for the keystone of that arch he forged the wild magic, so that time would be able to resist chaos and endure.
Then within the arch he formed the Earth. For ages he labored, formed and unformed, trialed and tested and rejected and trialed and tested again, so that when he was done his creation would have no cause to reproach him.
And when the Earth was fair to his eye, he gave birth to the inhabitants of the Earth, beings to act out in their lives his reach for perfection - and he did not neglect to give them the means to strive for perfection themselves. When he was done, he was proud as only those who create can be.
Alas, he did not understand Despite, or had forgotten it. He understood his task thinking that perfect labor was all that he required to create perfection. But when he was done, and his pride had tasted its first satisfaction, he looked closely at the Earth, thinking to gratify himself with the sight - and he was dismayed.
For, Behold ! Buried deep in the Earth through no will or forming of his were banes of destruction, powers virile enough to rip his masterwork into dust.
Then he understood, or remembered. Perhaps he found Despite itself beside him, misguiding his hand. Or perhaps he saw the harm in himself. It does not matter. He became outraged with grief and torn pride.
In his fury, he wrestled with Despite, either within him or without, and in his fury he cast the Despiser down, out of the infinity of the cosmos onto the Earth.
Alas ! Thus the Despiser was imprisoned within Time. And thus the Creator's creation became the Despiser's world, to torment as he chose.
For the very Law of Time, the principle of power which made the arch possible, worked to preserve Lord Foul, as we now call him .. that Law requires that no act may be undone ..
Okay. Arc is created. Earth is created and populated. Creator notices the fly in the pudding and gets pissed. Casts Lord Foul down. Slams the jail door shut forever. Creator cannot reach into the arc of time lest everything everywhere is undone...unless he wants to imprison half of himself or some evil brother.
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:15 pm
by drew
Why don't you question SRD about this in the GI...he LOOOVES getting Creator Questions.
This story comes from Lord Tamarantha...I doubt if she was present during the Earth's creation.
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:22 pm
by Astavyastataa Kadna
As an aside ... I remember from the Eddings books a deific law that things could NEVER be 'unmade' - they could be destroyed ... but you could not undo something one done. Any attempt to do so rebounded on the practitioner with disasterous results!
Wonder if SRD got it from there?!
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:34 pm
by danlo
Are you refering to The Belgariad? The first book, The Power of Prophesy, was published in '82 a number of years after the 1st Chrons...
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:33 am
by matrixman
Actually, I liked Eddings's "rules" of magic in the Belgariad. They were well-thought out, IMO. (Sure, I seem to dump on Eddings whenever the occasion arises, but I do acknowledge there was good stuff in the Belgariad.)
I might even dare say Eddings's magical laws are more comprehensible than Donaldson's (to some degree). I mean, I'm still tripping myself over things like the difference between the Law of Death and the Law of Life. Despite valiant attempts by Wayfriend and others to try and explain the difference, it still feels like some obscure legal technicality to me, rather than something I can grasp intuitively.
Um...I have no thoughts on the question at hand. I'll go back to my milk and cookies now.
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:01 am
by Edge
Donaldson's 'laws of magic' are certainly more complex and less easily defined than most other fantasy authors' (including Eddings). Personally, I find that makes them more intriguing, even if I battle to understand them.
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:30 am
by danlo
I battle, but I'm learning to let it go...
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:40 pm
by Ur Dead
SRD really wanted to become a lawyer, thats why The Land has so many different types of Law's.
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:14 pm
by Prebe
That is A KICK ASS SIG Danlo!
*imagining a tanned Don Johnson and flamingos taking off*
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:00 pm
by drew
I figured that in the 1st chrons, SRD only imagined the Lawof Death.
When he wrote the 2nd chrons, he invented the law of Life.
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:28 pm
by KAY1
The whole point is that the creator could destroy the Arch and therefore the Earth but he wants to preserve it and therefore has to work through tools such as TC.
the problem is though that the Creator wanted a perfect creation but eh obviously didn't understand the need for balance. As he had his opposite (Foul) so everything on Earth needs an opposite. So as much as he blamed Foul for placing the banes within the Earth, it kind of had to happen that way - Foul is essential - which I believe TC realised at the end when he became the Arch.
Of course that seems to imply there is no way to really defeat Foul, although it should also mean he can't drive good from the Earth as well or he himself would cease to exist.
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:29 pm
by aTOMiC
I'm getting the impression that either this is a non topic or that the question I've posed is like asking "Can God create a rock that he himself cannot lift?" My original post was intended to point out an apparent inconsistency with our understanding of Lord Taramantha's depiction of the creation of the earth. Perhaps the truth has been couched in myth and will never be truly understood (within the context of a purely fictitious story that is).
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:36 pm
by KAY1
The Creator cast Foul down, which is plausible as it may be the Arch is a one way door only so things can go in but not come back out again.
It is then said the Creator could not put his hand upon the earth to destroy Foul as it would rend the Arch, which again is plausible as it doesn't mean it is is hand going through the Arch that would cause the problem but pulling it back again!
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:12 pm
by aTOMiC
KAY1 wrote:The Creator cast Foul down, which is plausible as it may be the Arch is a one way door only so things can go in but not come back out again.
It is then said the Creator could not put his hand upon the earth to destroy Foul as it would rend the Arch, which again is plausible as it doesn't mean it is is hand going through the Arch that would cause the problem but pulling it back again!
Ah but that could mean that the Creator could pass through the arch to defeat Foul but would be trapped lest he destroy the Earth with his departure.
If he so chose that is.
Re: Wouldn't the entrapment of Lord Foul destroy time?
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:02 pm
by High Lord Tolkien
".. into the infinity before Time was made came the Creator like a worker into his workshop. And since it is the nature of creating to desire perfection, the Creator devoted all himself to the task.
First he built the arch of Time, so that his creation would have a place in which to be - and for the keystone of that arch he forged the wild magic, so that time would be able to resist chaos and endure.
Fine.
The Creator builds the Arch.
The Arch is complete.
Then within the arch he formed the Earth. For ages he labored, formed and unformed, trialed and tested and rejected and trialed and tested again, so that when he was done his creation would have no cause to reproach him.
"within the Arch" what the heck does that mean exactly?
How can the Creator form the Earth without doing to the Arch what we're told later he can't do to remove Foul without destroying the Earth?
Alas, he did not understand Despite, or had forgotten it.
Then he understood, or remembered. Perhaps he found Despite itself beside him, misguiding his hand. Or perhaps he saw the harm in himself. It does not matter. He became outraged with grief and torn pride.
In his fury, he wrestled with Despite, either within him or without, and in his fury he cast the Despiser down, out of the infinity of the cosmos onto the Earth.
SO at the very least Foul is a small aspect of the Creator that the Creator "removed" or at the most he's another being of lesser "cosmic strength".
Alas ! Thus the Despiser was imprisoned within Time. And thus the Creator's creation became the Despiser's world, to torment as he chose.
For the very Law of Time, the principle of power which made the arch possible, worked to preserve Lord Foul, as we now call him .. that Law requires that no act may be undone ..
aTOMiC wrote:Ah but that could mean that the Creator could pass through the arch to defeat Foul but would be trapped lest he destroy the Earth with his departure.
If he so chose that is.:
That makes the most sense to me.
He should figure out how to make a doorway back out once he crosses over.........maybe he should practice with Legos or something....
Re: Wouldn't the entrapment of Lord Foul destroy time?
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:08 pm
by Relayer
Remember that all those stories are interpretations told by the different peoples of the Land (or of the world) and none may be literally accurate.
High Lord Tolkien wrote:
He should figure out how to make a doorway back out once he crosses over.........maybe he should practice with Legos or something....
Funny, I was thinking essentially the same thing before I read your reply.
But it's not Legos, it's racetracks.
Re: Wouldn't the entrapment of Lord Foul destroy time?
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:23 pm
by wayfriend
High Lord Tolkien wrote:How can the Creator form the Earth without doing to the Arch what we're told later he can't do to remove Foul without destroying the Earth?
I've always imagined that, after the Earth was finished, the Creator needed to, metaphorically, close the hood and start the Arch up. Now he can't open up the hood while the Arch is running, lest it stop working.
It's not that lame of an analogy. Consider a top. You can build one out of wood, and set it spinning. Once it's spinning, you can't fix or change it unless you stop it first.