"Mother of All Spoilers . . . "

[wayfriend]

I was arguing in that thread that TC becomes his own "god" in the WGW. The last section of that book, "apotheosis," is named for a word which means: Exaltation to divine rank or stature; deification.

Hmmm... I'll grant you that Covenant becomes exalted, by the Banefire if not by Foul's blasts. As does Linden, when she heals the Sunbane. (In Runes, there is the comment that she becomes "exalted" when she finally obtains the Staff.) And the merging of Vain and Findail is called "apotheosis" by the author himself.

When she understood what was happening. Linden poured herself into the apotheosis.

The same term applying to all of these acts? Sounds like Donaldson to me.

And exaltation ties in with the idea of "transformation", which Donaldson describes elsewhere in the GI.

But neither Troy nor Covenant actually died in the Land: rather they were transformed; became beings of an entirely different kind.

(11/21/2004)

But where you lose me is Covenant becoming a "god", or Covenant becoming one with his Creator. I need a little more selling on this point.

Unlike the relationship between Covenant and Lord Foul, the relationship between Covenant and the Creator hasn't really been explored very much, beyond a "I needed you" and "thank you". If this has happened, it's jumped over having any kind of story arc. Unless the story arc has been so buried that it can't be seen until the author explains it.

[Theomach]

wait, the old man is the creator??? it's been a while since i read the first series and i always thought he was more of like a caretaker/angel type. that is, the creator moved on and the old man stayed b/c he cared.

[Atrium]

I didnt think much of the Creator not appearing in the beginning of the Last Chronicles. He appeared the first time both Covenant and Linden were summoned, but my impression was that he needed to test them. He sure tested Linden quite brutally, and Covenant too was asked some pretty hard questions ("why dont you kill yourself?"). This time around he should be sure enough of them both, and maybe dont believe that they need his reassurance. From his perspective, the less he has to do with them the better, to avoid converting them into his "tools".

However the quote from Donaldsons GI seem to implicate something else. It makes me inclined to believe also that the Creator is setting up some sort of trap for Foul. Maybe the only way to kill his evil brother is to die himself? Or maybe they will have to join each other and become something else?

Covenant having become the Creator is an interesting thought, but i see this as conflicting with what we have been told earlier: if the Creator reaches into the Arch of Time it will crumble. Well, Covenant IS (was?) the Arch of Time, and affects events within it in several ways, so this would have cracked the Arch a long time ago.

[Zarathustra]

Rereading Runes in anticipation of AATE, I've noticed something new about the beggar or harbinger not appearing. First, I must put together all the relevant quotes (including a small portion I posted recently in the Runes dissection forum).

The missing beggar is first described in terms of doubt over Roger's threat. In chapter 3, In Spite of Her, Linden just got off the phone with a dismissive Sheriff Lytton, who thinks that Roger was a "pleasant young man." And despite having enough experience to damn well trust her intuition, Linden actually allows herself to doubt Roger's danger. Maybe she wants to doubt it, so she won't have to fear for Jeremiah. But she also has a "good" reason:

She had seen no harbinger. ... If Roger's intentions threatened the Land in some way, surely that ragged figure must be somewhere nearby? And if he did not appear to forewarn her, surely Roger could not be as dangerous as she feared?

This logic strikes me as odd, but I can't quite place my finger on it. This feeling usually makes me think that Donaldson is building up justifications in the text for a future move. Shortly afterwards, he writes:

If the old man appeared, she would have to choose between the Land and Jeremiah. She could not challenge Lord Foul in the Land's defense without abandoning her son; and that she would not do. No matter how many people died, or how much beauty was destroyed.

Holy crap, that's scary! Linden would choose Jeremiah no matter how many people died?!? It's interesting that the danger is also phrased in terms of beauty being destroyed (on equal footing with people dying), given [FR spoiler]

Spoiler

Wildwood's question in FR (see my thread Wildwood's Question in the FR forum).

While beauty being destroyed has clearly been a danger in the 1st and 2nd Chronicles, I don't believe SRD ever made it this explicit. It always seemed like a symptom of the danger, not the danger itself. (The real danger being Despite, which manifests itself as a disregard or malice toward things of beauty, which are then attacked as a means to motivate white gold wielders into desecrations in order to free Foul.) But now her role in the 2nd Chrons is stated explicitly as "preserver of beauty." From chapter 1 of Runes:

... she had somehow spent several months outside--or deep within--herself, striving to win free of her own weakness and the legacy of her parents in order to preserve the beauty of a world which had never been meant for corruption.

So SRD is setting up a conflict between her 2nd Chrons purpose and her Last Chronicles motivation: beauty (Land) vs Jeremiah. She clearly states which she would choose ... IF the harbinger actually showed up. But he doesn't. Therefore, she doesn't have to make that choice right now. That choice is apparently postponed while she is in the real world, and the sole reason for that postponement is the absence of the harbinger! Coincidence?

What if that's the reason he didn't show himself to her? Bear with me ...

So although Linden is worried about Roger in terms of his plans for Joan, she feels relatively safe for herself and her son because she assumes that Roger doesn't know Jeremiah exists. However, her fear increases once she sees the Lego Mt.Thunder and Revelstone. But even here, she doesn't fear Roger--she focuses her fear on Lord Foul:

Dear God! she thought in dismay and outrage. He's threatneing my son. Lord Foul meant harm to Jeremiah.

But then she connects the two issues (Foul/Roger) with the Harbinger:

She had tried to believe that there would be no danger unless the old man in the ochre robe apeared to warn her. But she no longer trust his absence to mean that anyone was safe.

Immediately after this quote, she considers for the first time whether she should flee. LF is threatening her son. However, she talks herself out of this, because (again) she doesn't think Roger knows Jeremiah exists.

This distinction--between Roger and Lord Foul--is important! She is able to be brave and think about love, beauty, and courage because she can separate those issues: threat to her son (which can only literally come from Roger) vs threat to the Land (from LF). As long as Jeremiah is considered to be safe (from Roger), she can be Linden the Chosen who did things like saving the Land:

Aching to protect her son, she gave serious consideration to the possibilities of flight.

But the prospect shamed her. And she had learned the necessity of courage from the most stringent teachers. Love and beauty could not be preserved by panic or flight.

Then she goes on to think about how Covenant had died and Jeremiah's hand had been burned because she hadn't been brave enough last time. She froze. She doesn't want to be that person again.

If she fled now, no one would remain to stand between the Despiser and more victims. She did not mean to be ruled by her fears again. Not ever. No matter how serverly Roger Covenant provoked her.

Here, however, she faced a conundrum which she did not know how to untangle. To flee for Jeremiah's sake? Or to remain for her own, and for Joan's, and for the Lands?

If she was not going to be the same woman who froze or fled, why the conundrum?? Indeed, she has already spelled out exactly what she would do if the choice was forced upon her: she'd choose Jeremiah, no matter how many people died or how much beauty was destroyed. The conundrum only exists as long as the threat to Jeremiah is abstract and ambiguous rather than literal and imminent (Lord Foul threatening her son--not Roger).

The one thing that would change that--and collapse the conundrum--is the appearance of the Harbinger. "If the old man appeared, she would have to choose between the Land and Jeremiah."

She reiterates her certainty of that choice:

... if she were forced to a choice between Jeremiah and Lord Foul's other victims, she would stand by her son.

At the end of chapter 3, when she learns via phone call that Roger has shot Bill Coty, she is angry.

She could not think: she was too full of rage. The old prophet had betrayed her. He had given her no warning at all. Apparently he no longer cared what happened to the Land.

Of course we know that's ridiculous. But if the Land's only remaining "savior" (Linden) is adamantly opposed to saving the Land while her son needs her, what's a Harbinger to do? If his presence will force her to make a choice that will damn the Land, then we can NOT infer from his absence that he doesn't care for the Land!! In fact, just the opposite.

And then Linden learns that Roger does indeed know about Jeremiah. She thinks, "She had lost her chance to flee with Jeremiah. It would never come again." (page 58 )). Her chance to choose Jeremiah over the Land was gone.

After racing home in a panic, finding Jeremiah gone, she becomes Linden the Chosen again:

Between one heartbeat and the next, she ceased to be the Linden Avery who could panic or be paralyzed. In that woman's place, she became Linden Avery the Chosen, who had transcended Ravers and despair in teh name of those she loved.

This is very important, because it proves that the old Linden Avery (pre-Land) wasn't entirely gone. She still had the potential to revert back to her old self. She could still be that old panicky, paralysis-prone woman. All it takes is kidnapping her son. Yet, the finality of that act--the fact that it's now too late to flee--brings back the Chosen.

Her next mention of the Harbinger is anger over the fact that he didn't warn her that Jeremiah was in danger:

--and who should have by God warned her that Jeremiah's life was at risk.

That's a strange expectation. We've never seen in the past that the beggar warned her of danger to other people.

Upon seeing blood in TC's old house, she thinks:

She had talked herself out of taking her fears seriously enough. Now she knew better. She would not make that mistake again.

Again, the absence of the Harbinger led her on this path, led her to dismiss her fears (and her potential to be Linden the Panicky) long enough for Jeremiah to be taken, and thus the choice between Land/son eliminated (for now).

Hiking to the stone "alter," she thinks of TC's refusal of the Land for the sake of the snakebite girl. She knows Roger would avoid that spot because the ground itself might retain too much of his father's courage. Remembering TC's courage, she thinks:

She had every intention of refusing the Land, if she had to; if Roger left her no other choice.

But her intention has nothing to do with courage. Indeed, her desire to save Jeremiah--to choose her son over the Land--is more about fleeing and panic. It's not like TC's choice. She intends to give up the ring for Jeremiah's life. When TC gave up his ring, the Harbinger returned it and admonished: "Be true." Giving up the ring is not courage, it's the opposite of being true.

Besides, it's too late. Roger seems to agree:

"It's too late," he told Linden. "You're already lost. You should be able to see that. Your hand is bleeding, Doctor." His tone betrayed a hint of eagerness. "Why do you suppose that is?"

She gaped at him, momentarily silenced. How had he--?

But he gripped her son by the wrist; pointed his gun at Sandy's head. For their sake, Linden retorted, "Because I cut myself."

"No." Again he shook his head. "It's because you're already doomed. You can't get out of it now."

Ignoring for now that it's impossible for Roger to know this, it's a pretty freaky detail all on its own. Linden hurt herself with her car keys, while she was momentarily Linden the Panicky. She couldn't get her keys into the ignition because she was shaking and terrified.

Raging through her teeth, she clutched the keys in her fist and punched the dashboard hard enough to gouge metal into her palm.

Just like the despair that caused children (like Jeremiah) to put their hands into the bonfire, Linden mutilates herself during her brief time of panic, rage, and despair--before she regains her Linden the Chosen demeanor (though still willing to give up the ring).

I believe the Harbinger didn't appear because he realized that Linden had allowed herself to become susceptible to the same darkness which undermined her previous life before the Land--a darkness which was tied to a "perverse" or "obsessive" love for a boy who could not return that love due to his own connection to that darkness. And in some ways, it was her successes in the Land which allowed this possibility of darkness to reenter:

Nearly two years passed before she recognized the residual ache in her heart for what it was: not grief over Covenant’s death, although that pang never lost its poignancy, but rather a hollow place left by the Land. Her parents had dedicated her to death, but she had transcended their legacy. Now she realized that her new concivictions and passions required more of her. Her work with her patients suited her abilites; but it did not satisfy the woman who had sojourned with Giants, contended with Ravers, and opposed the Sunbane at Thomas Covenant’s side.

She wanted to heal as well some of the harm which Lord Foul had done in her present world. And she needed someone to love.

And as I show in the chapter 3 dissection, she utterly fails in both of these requirements. She is unable to heal ANY of the harm LF caused in this world ("She failed all her patients." (page 10)), and she is unable to find the love she needs in Jeremiah ("He was lost, and her love could not find him." (page 42)).

In a fantasy world, she had become a person who could heal an entire continent with magic, but in the real world couldn't even heal a sick lady or a sick boy. Her impotence, contrasted with her fantasy life, has made her the kind of woman who would choose to flee with her son--no matter how many people died or how much beauty was destroyed--if she was faced with that choice.

Luckily, the Harbinger never appeared, so she could never act on that choice. His absence forced her into a position where choosing her son was also a de facto choice to return to the Land.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Awesome post Z!!

Need to reread it a few more times to take it all in.


It's funny though.
The Old Man only showed himself to TC and Linden to test them.
Why would he show himself to Linden a second time?

It will be interesting to find out who he did in fact talk to though.
Jeremiah? Roger? Joan?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Z,

I read the first part of your post and came to the conclusion that the Old Man didn't appear to Linden for one good reason: Linden has already made her choice. Jeremiah is more important than preventing desecration.

[wayfriend]

The idea that the old man would, in all but words, lie to Linden, in order to trick her into going to the Land when she would otherwise choose not to, in order to trick her into risking her son to Roger, doesn't sound right to me at all.

HLT sums up my feelings. The old man tests you, then chooses you, then he's out of the picture. Covenant went to the Land five times, but the old man only showed up the one, first time.

If he shows up again, he's going to test someone else.

But now I have another idea... which can't be posted in this forum.

[Zarathustra]

Nothing I said can be interpreted to mean that the old man lied to Linden, even by omission. Refraining from appearing to her, so that she would not be put in a position which would absolutely damn the Land, isn't a lie. Nor does it mean that he tricked her (no more than Covenant's dead tricked him by refraining from telling him full and complete knowledge about the events surround the One Tree). Donaldson uses this narrative device of characters refraining from giving important information in every single Chronicles, nearly every book. They are not lies. Or tricks.

If the reason why he didn't appear to Linden more than once is as mundane as some arbitrary "appearing" rule, then why on earth is it the mother of all spoilers?!?

There has to be another reason. This "only once" appearing rule spoils nothing.

[Zarathustra]

If she was not going to be the same woman who froze or fled, why the conundrum?? Indeed, she has already spelled out exactly what she would do if the choice was forced upon her: she'd choose Jeremiah, no matter how many people died or how much beauty was destroyed.

To follow up on this point ... she rationalizes her choice to refuse the Land in the same terms as Covenant's choice to refuse the Land in TIW). So if that's true, then (again) why the conundrum? If choosing Jeremiah is as potentially positive as TC's choice, then Jeremiah and the Land align into one positive purpose.

So we have Linden certain which option she would choose, and pretty certain that this option was just as good as TC's. So there should be no conflict. And yet, this is an issue she struggles with for most of Runes, and on into FR. Clearly, it's a major character arc. If not her central conflict, it's deeply tied to it.

And the fact that she would be forced into direct, immediate confrontation with this conflict (her central crisis) if the old man showed up--and yet doesn't becuase he fails to show up--postpones the resolution of that central crisis so that it's not wrapped up in the prologue. That's the entire reason it's possible to have a story at all! If he had showed up, Linden would have chosen Jeremiah, ran away, and the story would be over.

So the fact that the main character's central crisis is allowed to be postponed (creating the very circumstances which allow the story to happen at all) is tied--in the author's own words--to the "mother of all spoilers," is NOT a coincidence!

[dlbpharmd]

Great posts, everyone.

I can see Linden's logic when she talks about expecting to see the old man. If I were in her shoes, I would do the same as she - there's a line (I think in chapter 3) where she is driving home in her old car and the text says something to the effect that she studied the faces of pedestrians, looking for the harbinger.

I think the old man didn't appeared to Linden instead of Covenant (in TWL) because he knew that she would be the one who would ultimately save the Land.

I think that the old man DID appear to someone, perhaps Joan or Jeremiah. If so, this would indeed be the "mother of all spoilers."

[Zarathustra]

DLB, I agree that the harbinger appearing to someone else would indeed be a spoiler (if it happened--but we don't have any evidence or hint, so I'm limiting my analysis to the text), especially if that someone else is the one who saves the Land.

But given that perhaps the Land won't be saved this time, that's some fairly shaking speculation.

A couple things are certain: he didn't appear to Linden. Donaldson included enough text in the relatively short prologue to make this fact important to the story, and vital to Linden's character arc.

Therefore, while I agree that your speculation would indeed be spoilerific, so too would the counterpart of that speculation: namely, that Linden *isn't* the one to save the Land. That would be a huge spoiler. If the Harbinger chose someone else, this is *also* necessarily a choice to not choose Linden. Surely the reasons for not choosing Linden are of equal importance to choosing someone else. There has to be a reason why she's not appropriate for saving the Land. And the reasons I outlined above make that possibility obvious: she'd choose Jeremiah over the Land, if it came down to it.

... unless of course, it didn't come down to it. Linden could conceivably save the Land if she wasn't forced into a choice between the two, or if this choice was actually similar to Covenant's refusal in TIW.

I think it's a mistake to base our expectations on what happened in the 2nd Chrons. The main reason the old man appeared to Linden in TWL was to legitimize her as a main POV character, on par with Covenant himself. I seriously doubt it was because the beggar has an aversion to multiple meetings (after all, he did at least talk to Covenant again at the end of the 1st Chrons). If the beggar appeared to someone else, then why isn't that character the main POV character? Simply for the shock value of a major spoiler? I don't think Donaldson works that way.

[wayfriend]

Nothing I said can be interpreted to mean that the old man lied to Linden, even by omission.

But if the Land's only remaining "savior" (Linden) is adamantly opposed to saving the Land while her son needs her, what's a Harbinger to do? If his presence will force her to make a choice that will damn the Land, then we can NOT infer from his absence that he doesn't care for the Land!! In fact, just the opposite. ... the absence of the Harbinger led her on this path, led her to dismiss her fears (and her potential to be Linden the Panicky) long enough for Jeremiah to be taken, and thus the choice between Land/son eliminated (for now).

It sure sounds like you're saying that the harbinger didn't want Linden to see him, so that she wouldn't flee with Jeremiah, because that would prevent her from saving the Land. If that's what your saying, then that sure sounds like lying by omission to achieve his own ends. Which, as I said, seems out of character.

It does seem to presume, also, that the harbinger wants Linden to save the Land. There are many different ways that this might not be true. Are we sure that the Land will be saved? Are we sure Linden will save it?

[Zarathustra]

I don't think it's out of character at all for him to refrain from putting himself into situations where his mere presence will force the destruction of the Land ... that's the entire reason why he needs other people to enter the Land to save it for him: his presence will undo the Arch and destroy his world.

Likewise, his presence in Linden's life at this time will force her to confront a situation in a way that will damn the Land. Given her (in my view) "perverse" insistence upon this choice, the Creator would actually be giving her more freedom by refraining from interfering in her life at this point. His absence gives her more room and time to react to her personal dilemma, without forcing her ultimatum.

Rather than manipulation or coersion, this "giving her space" tactic is just the opposite.

[Vraith]

I, for one, don't see much justification to say the prophet/creator is lying/manipulating by omission or commission.
The simplest explanation that remains consistent with the story continuing, and with the Creator's character as we've seen it [other than "he can't come, he's TC"] is:
"I have made my choices, they now make theirs. I will abide the outcome."

And

So we have Linden certain which option she would choose, and pretty certain that this option was just as good as TC's. So there should be no conflict. And yet, this is an issue she struggles with for most of Runes, and on into FR. Clearly, it's a major character arc. If not her central conflict, it's deeply tied to it.

Yes, I agree...it's her mother/father, healer/murderer, lover/enslaver, helpless/potent conflicts all in one neat package, only more so since, at this point she's been around, knows real love, real choice, real power, and real responsibility. She's tossing blame at the prophet, but ignoring what she knows of him.
Right now, the conundrum is rooted in this [my mental shorthand] In choosing Jeremiah above all else, she feels:
[the Land, in place of father] "You never loved me anyway."
AND
[the Land, for her mother] She's killing it.
When those things first happened, she was less than she is. Now it's closer to malice aforethought to choose Jeremiah.
I think the key to this particular line of thought is: the snakebit girl was wholly of this earth, and "innocent." Jeremiah, otoh, has been exposed to LF [perhaps even touched by him, his fire burned Jeremiah's hands]. Linden also has direct knowledge that if LF wants you in the Land, you end up in the Land.

[wayfriend]

I, for one, don't see much justification to say the prophet/creator is lying/manipulating by omission or commission.
The simplest explanation that remains consistent with the story continuing, and with the Creator's character as we've seen it [other than "he can't come, he's TC"] is:
"I have made my choices, they now make theirs. I will abide the outcome."

Oh, I agree with this 'simplest explanation' completely.

If the old man doesn't want to interfere, he won't interfere. But if that's the case, then he hardly needs another reason to do so, such as the one Zarathustra suggests.

The only way Zarathustra's line of reasoning makes any sense is to claim that, if Linden didn't react to his presence the way she indicates she would, the old man would have shown up. If he wasn't going to show up anyway, then all the motives Z ascribes to his actions don't apply.

And if he would have shown up, but decided not to because of how Linden would react, then he is in fact manipulating her. He is, in fact, interfering.

Further, if his intent in appearing is to provide some sort of warning, then by not delivering the warning, he has made an omission. To the extent that anyone was counting on that warning (and what use is a warning if it's not directed to anyone) by omitting a warning he would otherwise have delivered, he has deceived them.

No, the Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: he's not interfering for the sake of not interfering.

Or the Land isn't being saved. Or he's not choosing anyone new. Or he's dead. Or he's locked up and prevented from appearing. Or he appeared to someone else that we haven't seen. Or he turned into Lord Foul.

I don't think it's out of character at all for him to refrain from putting himself into situations where his mere presence will force the destruction of the Land ...

It would be out of character though to put saving the Land ahead of his fair treatment of those he chooses. He risked the Land when he chose Covenant, and again Linden, but he counted on them being who they are, and making the right choices, to save the Land. What you describe sounds like he doesn't trust Linden's choices, and so he eliminates one that he doesn't want her to take.

[Zarathustra]

The only way Zarathustra's line of reasoning makes any sense is to claim that, if Linden didn't react to his presence the way she indicates she would, the old man would have shown up. If he wasn't going to show up anyway, then all the motives Z ascribes to his actions don't apply.

That's not a bad point. Sure, it's implied in my reasoning. And, of course, I can't predict what would have happened if things had been different. So this could be seen as a flaw, if I were using my reasoning to make such predictions.

But I'm not making those predictions. Therefore, I don't see how my reasoning only makes sense if we follow that line of speculation. There could always be other reasons, other contingent factors, why the old man would have decided to not show up (in addition to the one I've given--two birds, one stone). My reasoning doesn't depend on the absence of those, nor does it eliminate those.

My reasoning is consistent with the text I've quoted. If it doesn't make the Creator's reasoning clear, then at least it makes Donaldson's reasons clear for including those quotes from the text. Donaldson needed Linden to not make this choice between Jeremiah and the Land. SRD needed her to not flee. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a story.

And if he would have shown up, but decided not to because of how Linden would react, then he is in fact manipulating her. He is, in fact, interfering.

No, that doesn't follow at all. If I want to save my child, but a robber has a gun pointed to his head, I'm not manipulating the robber by refraining from rushing forward and forcing his hand. One can reasonably say that under any other circumstances, I would have rushed into save my child. Just because I decide not to based on how the robber woudl react doesn't mean I'm manipulating him. Nor does it mean I'm interferring. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

Further, if his intent in appearing is to provide some sort of warning, then by not delivering the warning, he has made an omission. To the extent that anyone was counting on that warning (and what use is a warning if it's not directed to anyone) by omitting a warning he would otherwise have delivered, he has deceived them.

Again, no. What if by giving that warning it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy?

No, the Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: he's not interfering for the sake of not interfering.

But that wouldn't be the "mother of all spoilers." That's boring.

Or the Land isn't being saved. Or he's not choosing anyone new. Or he's dead. Or he's locked up and prevented from appearing. Or he appeared to someone else that we haven't seen. Or he turned into Lord Foul.

None of those reasons explain why Donaldson made it important to Linden's character arc. But I agree that they could be massive spoilers.

[wayfriend]

If I want to save my child, but a robber has a gun pointed to his head, I'm not manipulating the robber by refraining from rushing forward and forcing his hand.

You are certainly trying to influence what the robber does by how you act; so, yes. "Manipulate" may carry connotations that don't apply here, but "influence" is certainly sufficient for the purposes of my argument.

[Zarathustra]

Telling people that they should "be true" is attempting to influence them, isn't it? It's telling them how he thinks they should be! I don't see the problem with much more subtle, unobtrusive influence.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

No, the Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: he's not interfering for the sake of not interfering.

Occam's Razor doesn't suggest things. It is a rule stating that the simplest (or perhaps better) least complicated scientific hypothesis is likely to be the correct one.

It is a rule of thumb used by scientists to avoid errors of those such as, for example, Ptolemy who kept adding epicycles to his system of cosmology to explain away discrepancies in celestial observations.

On the other hand, the Chrons is not bound to the rules used by scientists, its limits are set only by Donaldson's vast imagination.

I do believe the Creator will appear at the end of the Chrons as a very active and potent participant in the downfall of Despite. And it's gonna be one hell of a huge battle.

Furthermore, Occam's Razor fails when there are multiple hypotheses that fit the rule, as with the following set of stream-of-consciousness ideas -

Or the Land isn't being saved. Or he's not choosing anyone new. Or he's dead. Or he's locked up and prevented from appearing. Or he appeared to someone else that we haven't seen. Or he turned into Lord Foul.

Which of those hypotheses works best with Occam's Razor?

Spoiler

Perhaps Jeremiah locked Him up inside one of his prisons. Occam's Razor doesn't seem to help here, too many ideas, too little evidence. At least we know from FR that Jeremiah can create them. If Roger says Jeremiah can create one, then it is highly likely that he already has, or else how would he know this? Did Jeremiah simply tell him about the prison idea?

That just an example of how I think it's very important to take our clues from the text Donaldson gives us.

[Zarathustra]

No, the Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: he's not interfering for the sake of not interfering.

Occam's Razor doesn't suggest things. It is a rule stating that the simplest (or perhaps better) least complicated scientific hypothesis is likely to be the correct one.

It is a rule of thumb used by scientists to avoid errors of those such as, for example, Ptolemy who kept adding epicycles to his system of cosmology to explain away discrepancies in celestial observations.

On the other hand, the Chrons is not bound to the rules used by scientists, its limits are set only by Donaldson's vast imagination.

Ah, very good point. I missed that. Using Occam's Razor on the Chrons would be like using it to deduce things about Ptolemy's epicycles. It makes no sense when applied to human inventions, human fictions. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to assume the opposite about human fictions, namely that they tend to be overly complicated, contrived. Otherwise, there would be no need for scientists to sound this warning about unnecessary complication in their hypotheses in the first place.