Mhoram's Overlooked Advice

A place to discuss the books in the FC and SC. *Please Note* No LC spoilers allowed in this forum. Do so in the forum below.

Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch

User avatar
Nerdanel
Bloodguard
Posts: 770
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:47 pm

Mhoram's Overlooked Advice

Post by Nerdanel »

It occurred to me, that both Covenant and Linden as well as the readers have (probably) universally overlooked one half of the advice Mhoram gave to Covenant in TWL. And that's while the particular quote is one of the most repeated ones in the entire series.
Mhoram wrote:It boots nothing to avoid his snares, for they are ever beset with other snares, and life and death are too intimately intergrown to be severed from each other.
The phrasing is a bit strange here, if you think the whole thing is only about snares being beset with other snares. Also, Mhoram said he risked much in giving his advice, but I think the snare thing isn't really that big a reveal. Covenant knew Lord Foul well enough by that point to expect sneaky planning.

I think what Mhoram meant to say is two-fold:

1. It boots nothing to avoid his snares, for they are ever beset with other snares.

2. And, life and death are too intimately intergrown to be severed from each other.

In essence, it would be a mistake to break the Law of Life! I've felt for a long time that certain problems in Runes stem directly from the breaking of the Law of Life, but now I have better (read: not practically nonexistent) proof than ever!
User avatar
danlo
Lord
Posts: 20838
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 8:29 pm
Location: Albuquerque NM
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post by danlo »

Word UP Nerdanel!! Good to see you! Makes absolute sense to me...
fall far and well Pilots!
User avatar
dlbpharmd
Lord
Posts: 14462
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:27 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by dlbpharmd »

Interesting post, Nerdanel.
Image
Dawngreeter
Elohim
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:39 pm
Location: cleveland, oh
Contact:

Post by Dawngreeter »

Do we think that a Forestal was so capable of such a grievous error? Or, was it just a matter of the Forestal's time running out and the ideal candidates showed up with the right amount of power (krill) to make the transition. At the cost of breaking this law sounds pretty steep to me too...hmmmm. It kinda makes you wonder why the Forestal (Troy) didn't take Sunder the way Troy was taken by his Forestal without breaking a Law.
It was the fetid halitus of the most diseased mortality condensed to its essence and elevated to the transcendence of prophecy, promise, suzerain truth—the definitive commandment of darkness.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19842
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

I love when we get a new, interesting thread dealing with something we've all read a billion times (okay, just three :) ) but still overlooked. Good job Nerdanel.

However, I must disagree with your interpretation.
The real Lord, Mhoram, not our young Watch member wrote:. . . life and death are too intimately intergrown to be severed from each other.
Breaking the Law of Life didn't sever life and death from each other. If anything, breaking this Law brought them closer together. Life and death were already "severed" from each other by this Law itself. That was the whole point of the Law--to keep them separate. Mhoram was telling Covenant that life and death are already so intertwined that the Law of Life itself is inauthentic, and it's okay for Covenant to end their severance by breaking the Law. He was giving him permission to do what he did at the end of WGW.

Granted, I'm not sure how much sense that makes, because in real life, it's perfectly authentic for life and death to be "severed." But how else can we interpret Mhoram's words? Either he was wrong, or in the Land it's perfectly natural for life and death to NOT be separate.

This would certainly go along with Mhoram's penchant for abolishing established norms--such as breaking the Oath of Peace by realizing it's inherently limiting nature.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
User avatar
danlo
Lord
Posts: 20838
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 8:29 pm
Location: Albuquerque NM
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post by danlo »

I think your perception of the books is wrong Malik...






just kidding :P

What you say makes perfect sense too, ( 8O damm I'm starting to sound like Avatar)
fall far and well Pilots!
User avatar
Nerdanel
Bloodguard
Posts: 770
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 10:47 pm

Post by Nerdanel »

I think the breaking of the Law of Life did indeed sever things. Previously, life -> dying-> death was the only way, but now that the Law of Life was broken, other possibilities like life -> dying -> life came possible. The inevitable passage to whatever afterlife got severed.

Mhoram's reference to life and death being intimately intergrown was said in present tense which means that that was the situation before the Law of Life was broken. The fact that he referred to life and death being severed, means that he thought that the process of severing was somehow possible (unless you think he was still talking about snares, which changes the meaning completely), and I think that's exactly what happened.

Poor Hile Troy. Everything he does turns out bad.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by wayfriend »

This one is fairly obvious to me.

Life and death are too intimately intergrown to be severed from each other refers to avoiding snares.

A person could seek to avoid snares, thereby attempting to avoid peril. But if you do, you would be unable to attain anything meaningful. You need to confront Foul's traps, not avoid them, if you want save the Land -- and yourself. You can't live if you avoid death; life and death go hand in hand. Therefore, they are intimately intergrown.

I don't think Mhoram meant anything more than that.
Last edited by wayfriend on Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
User avatar
A Gunslinger
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 8890
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 6:48 pm
Location: Southern WI (Madison area)

Post by A Gunslinger »

Wayfriend wrote:This one is fairly obvious to me.

life and death are too intimately intergrown to be severed from each other refers to avoiding snares.

A person could seek to avoid snares, thereby attempting to avoid peril. But if you do, you would be unable to attain anything meaningful. You need to confront Foul's traps, not avoid them, if you want save the Land -- and yourself. You can't live if you avoid death; life and death go hand in hand. They are intimately intergrown.
Wow. Succinct and 100% logical. Wayfriend...are you Spock?
"I use my gun whenever kindness fails"



ImageImage
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9822
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post by SoulBiter »

life and death are too intimately intergrown to be severed from each other
There are also some more literal meanings.. he was letting TC know that he will still be able to act once dead. This ended up being an intergal part of TC's plan.

This was also followed by
'But it is necessary to comprehend them, so that they may be mastered.
Which again hints at understanding that he will able to act once dead.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19842
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Wayfriend wrote:This one is fairly obvious to me.

Life and death are too intimately intergrown to be severed from each other refers to avoiding snares.

A person could seek to avoid snares, thereby attempting to avoid peril. But if you do, you would be unable to attain anything meaningful. You need to confront Foul's traps, not avoid them, if you want save the Land -- and yourself. You can't live if you avoid death; life and death go hand in hand. Therefore, they are intimately intergrown.

I don't think Mhoram meant anything more than that.
Yes, it does go along with the subject of avoiding snares. I agree that this part is obvious, because it's part of the same sentence.

But what particular snare was Mhoram talking about? What's the "big snare" of that entire trilogy? It's the fact that Covenant sacrificed himself for Joan, and therefore may have already given himself to Foul--negating his freewill--because he agreed to die in her place. If Mhoram was telling him not to try to avoid this snare, he was telling him to accept his own sacrifice. It's already done. Covenant is going to die. He must find a way to win in spite of that decision (a victory that involved breaking the Law of Life--which Mhoram must have foreseen).

So yes, Mhoram is telling Covenant not to avoid decisions which may lead to his own death. But this isn't a general philosophy of life he's trying to teach. He's talking specifically about the particular snare that is awaiting Covenant. It's not a coincidence that this particular snare itself is so "intertwined" with life and death. This specific issue is the major theme of the 2nd Chronicles.

Go given that Mhoram wasn't merely teaching a general principle about how to go about one's life, but instead speaking very specifically about the end of the WGW, he must have envisioned a victory despite Foul's "big snare" (which is the whole point of the Dead appearing to Covenant in the first place). He must have known that hope lay in the intertwining of life and death--something that the Law of Life was keeping separate. After all, he himself was one of Covenant's Dead. You've got a dead spirit giving Covenant advice about the intertwined nature of life/death--a situation only possible because Elena broke the Law of Death to begin with. So I think that Mhoram was very aware of the stakes here, and the possible outcome. Again, planning for this outcome was the whole reason why the dead showed up to give him cryptic advice (and Vain) to begin with. They didn't show up just to give him a good rule of thumb to live by.

You may want to dismiss the Dead talking to Covenant about the intertwined nature of life/death--a speech only possible due the breaking of the Law of Death--as a mere life lesson or general principle, but I think that strains credulity. Especially when they knew what was coming, and were actively planning for it.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by wayfriend »

Malik23 wrote:But what particular snare was Mhoram talking about? What's the "big snare" of that entire trilogy? ... He's talking specifically about the particular snare that is awaiting Covenant.
Oh, I'm not so sure. There were lots of little snares -- Marid, the warped stonedowners, the kidnapping of his companions -- what Caer Caveral did to his mind -- that seem to fit the bill here.

As for "the big snare" that you propose ... to accept his own sacrifice ... I don't see the story turning on that point. He knew when he chose to take Joan's place that he would die - that decision was already in the past.
And there was never any dilemma for Covenant choosing between saving himself in the real world and saving the Land. There was only one time he focused on saving himself, and that act did not risk anything, and he abandoned it almost immediately. And he did discover that he had to give up his Land life too, but again I didn't see him fighting it but only coming into a realization.

I do agree that the Dead knew what was coming, though.

But I prefer to see Covenant's anguish as the painful path to accepting that he cannot save the Land, and that he has to learn to trust a partner so completely that he can give them that burden. I don't see any snares there.
.
User avatar
amanibhavam
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 9:54 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by amanibhavam »

I do not entirely agree with you, Wayfriend. As far as up to the unfortunate affair at the One Tree Covenant was nurturing a hope that he may be saved (he tried to send Linden back to the bonfire after all). His big depression and self-pity on the way back was partly made of the realization that it was really finito, kaput, over.
Then he turned to Mhoram's words within himself, IMHO, and found the truth in them and tried to wrestle victory out of his personal defeat.
He spent four and a half volumes (okay, not entirely and not all the time and in diminishing proportions, but still) to survive his adventure with the Land. Mhoram made him realize that he must die in order to survive. He had pitied Hile Troy for the price he'd paid -- now he had to accept to pay a similar price.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
love is the shadow that ripens the wine

Languages of Middle-Earth community on Google Plus
Pink Floyd community on Google Plus
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by wayfriend »

amanibhavam wrote:I do not entirely agree with you, Wayfriend. As far as up to the unfortunate affair at the One Tree Covenant was nurturing a hope that he may be saved (he tried to send Linden back to the bonfire after all).
How does that disagree with me? I never claimed that Covenant didn't wish he could be saved. I just said I don't think it is a snare. A snare is, phrasing it for this context, something to lure you and then bring about your demise. I just don't see Covenant's seeking salvation as a lure set up by Foul in order to cause Covenant to fail. And I think it would be completely implausible for Covenant to never have wished for his own survival; he acts that way because it's only natural - not because someone is manipulating him thereby.

Your life for the ring was a gambit Foul tried in the first Chronicles. And it failed. In the second Chronicles, Foul never even tried to offer him his life.
.
User avatar
amanibhavam
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 9:54 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by amanibhavam »

Well, if one at least partially accepts the notion that the Land/Foul etc. are externalisations of TC's mind, then the snare comes from TC's inner Despiser telling him that he can somehow escape the final consequences of his leprosy/actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
love is the shadow that ripens the wine

Languages of Middle-Earth community on Google Plus
Pink Floyd community on Google Plus
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19842
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Wayfriend wrote:
amanibhavam wrote:I do not entirely agree with you, Wayfriend. As far as up to the unfortunate affair at the One Tree Covenant was nurturing a hope that he may be saved (he tried to send Linden back to the bonfire after all).
How does that disagree with me? I never claimed that Covenant didn't wish he could be saved. I just said I don't think it is a snare. A snare is, phrasing it for this context, something to lure you and then bring about your demise. I just don't see Covenant's seeking salvation as a lure set up by Foul in order to cause Covenant to fail.
This lure was set up in the bonfire. That was the snare. Foul's prediction was that Covenant would give him the ring. He did in fact do this. To try to avoid this snare--to NOT give Foul the ring, but instead fight him with all his might--would have been the most destructive thing Covenant could have done. If Covenant hadn't accepted his own death, but resisted it to the end, it would have ended with the breaking of the Arch. Instead, Covenant accepted a position of impotence. Surrender. But it wasn't suicide as much as it was sacrifice. He turned the conditions of the bonfire to his own use, and made his own death an act of courage rather than despair. To avoid Foul's snare in this circumstance would have actually been an act of despair, because it would have been a futile struggle against his own inevitable death. And that despair would have damned the Land.

How is that not a snare? That was Foul's entire plan.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
User avatar
aliantha
blueberries on steroids
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe

Post by aliantha »

As an aside, it occurred to me just now that Covenant sacrifices himself twice in the 2nd Chrons: at the very beginning, when he rescues Joan by offering himself to the cult members; and then again at the end, when he gives Foul the ring in order to save the Arch of Time. A couple of neat bookends to the trilogy. I guess you could say that his subbing for Joan was foreshadowing.
Image
Image

EZ Board Survivor

"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)

https://www.hearth-myth.com/
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19842
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

aliantha wrote:As an aside, it occurred to me just now that Covenant sacrifices himself twice in the 2nd Chrons: at the very beginning, when he rescues Joan by offering himself to the cult members; and then again at the end, when he gives Foul the ring in order to save the Arch of Time. A couple of neat bookends to the trilogy. I guess you could say that his subbing for Joan was foreshadowing.
Exactly! Another way to say it is that the entire 2nd Chronicles was an internal, "dreamlike," slowed-down version of his sacrifice in the external real world.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
Dawngreeter
Elohim
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:39 pm
Location: cleveland, oh
Contact:

Re: Mhoram's Overlooked Advice

Post by Dawngreeter »

Nerdanel wrote:In essence, it would be a mistake to break the Law of Life!
But wasn't that the Forestal's choice alone? Granted TC probably could have stopped him but he was totally clueless of what the Forestal was doing.

I'm confused. Let me see if I understand this.

Mhoram tells TC about not avoiding snares....

TC goes with that. He meets up with Caer Caveral and is happy to see that he has broken the Law of Life, now...

TC decides how he will be able to defeat Foul based on the fact that the Law of Life has been broken enabling him to be active as a dead guy? (like Sunder & Hollian)

But how was it that TC already knew he was going to give the ring to Foul before the break of the Law of Life? Was the future revealed to him in the Banefire? This part of the book I never got. Someone make it easy for me.
It was the fetid halitus of the most diseased mortality condensed to its essence and elevated to the transcendence of prophecy, promise, suzerain truth—the definitive commandment of darkness.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19842
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Mhoram's Overlooked Advice

Post by Zarathustra »

Dawngreeter wrote: Someone make it easy for me.
Isn't there a thread around here about What Happened at the End of WGW?

Anyway, my own personal opinion is that this is about being graceful in the face of things you can't change. "Unattractive truth," in Neil Peart's words. Authenticity. Acceptance. Sacrifice. Death.

Lord Foul is part of Covenant. It's the part of him that hates himself. You can fight that up to a point, as he did in the 1st Chronicles. And that's fine--as long as you realize it's ultimately futile. We should fight against our darker nature and not allow it to rule our lives. But this can go into inauthentic extremes, and Mhoram showed with his Oath of Peace epiphany in TPTP. People can stifle their "good" side by denying their bad side.

So Covenant realized that he was going to end his battle against Lord Foul, and let Foul attack him with all Foul had. When we deny ourselves is when we do our worst damage to others (and ourselves). In this context, giving Foul the ring was the bravest thing he ever did. He admitted the darkness within his passions.

Actually, I said it better back in 2006. (I found my old post.)
Once upon a time in 2006, I wrote:As some of you may remember, I subscribe to the "internal" interpretation of the Chronicles. So it may not come as a surprise that I think what's happening at the end of WGW is just TC finally looking at his own internal Despiser authentically.

Authenticity. I think this is the most important point of the Chronicles: to face reality with unflinching courage, the kind of courage that allows you to accept your guilt at raping a young girl, to accept your responsibility as a free agent in the world, to accept your own potential for violence and Desecration. Lord Foul isn't some foreign enemy, but the enemy within. Most of us are uncomfortable thinking about how we all have the potential within us to do horrible things--and we especially don't like to think about bad things we have already done. It's part of being human.

So how does this help us understand the end of The White Gold Wielder? Let's first look at what happened at the end of TPTP: Covenant's previous solution was strength, resistance, fighting Despite. And that is a valid solution up to a point. We must fight against our own potential for "evil," constanly overcoming it on a daily basis. But if we take that battle too far, it becomes denial. We cannot fight Despite to the very end, because we ultimately cannot rid ourselves of it completely (hence TC's unwillingness to completely kill Foul in TPTP). To make such an attempt is inauthentic, because it denies this essential part of ourselves. No one can force themselves to be perfect.

At the end of WGW, Covenant is accepting his own despite, and taking it upon himself. He is allowing himself to be human, to be imperfect, to be mortal. Afterall, his victory in the Banefire wasn't a purge of the venom, but a FUSING of the venom with the wild magic. It isn't about getting the venom out of his being, but instead not allowing that venom to get out and wreak havoc upon the lives of those around him. Control. Wild magic is passion; and passion isn't always pure. Sometimes passion is angry and violent. Wild.

So by Covenant allowing LF to attack him rather than the Arch, he is absorbing his own despite upon himself, accepting it as part of himself as a way to contain it, not allowing it to hurt those around him--but instead taking that pain upon himself. "I wouldn't dream of fighting you." He is no longer fighting his dark side. "All you can do is hurt me. But pain doesn't last. It just makes me stronger."

By giving Foul the ring, he is acknowledging the venom in his passion, giving his passion over to their more negative aspects. But he is containing their affects through acceptance.

"But each assault hit nothing except the specter, hurt nothing except Covenant. Blast after blast, he absorbed the power of Despite and fire and became stronger. Surrendering to their
savagery, he transcended them . . . He became an unbreakable bulwark raised like glory against destruction.
At the same time, each attack made Lord Foul weaker. Covenant was a barrier the Despiser could not pierce because it did not resist him;"

Because Covenant did not resist his Despiser, he had the power to contain it. It is denial that causes us to fling our malice outwards upon each other. We want others to hurt because we cannot stand/accept our own pain. But Covenant learns the paradoxical solution of defeating-Despite-though-accepting-it.

I think that's cool.
He fought his own mortality during nearly the entire 1st two Chronicles, fought his leprosy and his own end as if it could be defeated. But in the end, he did the opposite of Kevin: he sacrificed himself instead of sacrificing the Land.
Success will be my revenge -- DJT
Post Reply

Return to “The First and Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant”