FR related GI questions and answers

Book 2 of the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant

Moderators: dlbpharmd, Seareach

User avatar
Relayer
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Wasatch Stonedown

Post by Relayer »

No sh!t! And his reply shows it. Things like "<i>There's an underlying message here that's much more profound than it sounds" </i> implies much.

I laughed at that comment too. It's one thing for us to joke around and debate the issues here at the Watch, and it's a lot of fun for us to tease each other. He even seems to think it's funny; he laughed when someone told him about THOOLAH. But let's all remember to respect an artist's right to express himself as he sees fit. It's HIS book. Love it or hate it, that's fine... but essentially telling him how to write his book is just like one of his characters being deprived of the Necessity of Freedom.
"History is a myth men have agreed upon." - Napoleon

Image
User avatar
Nav
Lord
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 5:03 pm
Location: Surrey - Home of Baseball

Post by Nav »

So, Roger led to both Jeremiah and Anele?
Does anyone else read that and think Villain-Victim-Rescuer? There's two books left, plenty of time for each to spend in the other two roles.
Q. Why do Communists drink herbal tea?
A. Because proper tea is theft.
User avatar
dlbpharmd
Lord
Posts: 14460
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:27 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by dlbpharmd »

Petar Belic: Spoiler Alert.
Back in 2005 I posted a query on the gradual interview about the recurrence of physical blindness throughout the Covenant sequence. So here we are, a few years later I was quite stunned after reading Fatal Revenant, to realise that the blindness motif had blatantly continued, especially after the eyeless Sandgorgons turned up around the same time another character lost their own eyes. Of course there was Kevin's Dirt. Then Hile Troy unexpectedly turning up in the text . . .
. . . so I was wondering if you had any more reflections on blindness and its context within your storytelling? Back then, and especially now in retrospect, your previous answers are quite interesting!
Thanks again for putting in the effort to continue a marvellous series. Although I am a member of THOOLAH... I can't wait to read more.

I think I've mentioned before that the more deeply immersed I become in telling a story, the less I feel able to talk about what I'm doing. At this stage, I've pretty much lost all sense of perspective. So there are probably many questions for which I won't have answers until I look back on the whole of "The Last Chronicles."

But I *can* tell you that blindness (and vision problems in general) are such a rich source of symbols and metaphors that I hardly know how to resist them. They're rather like leprosy in that regard (not to mention the other physical limitations and maimings that I've written about throughout my storytelling life): they can be seen as the physical reification of emotional, psychological, or spiritual states. However, they can also--since "The Chronicles" are about *paradox*--be seen as opportunities; as vehicles (in the case of blindness) for various sorts of enlightenment. What the character--or creature--does with his/her/its blindness (or visual handicap) reveals much about his/her/its essential nature.

(02/09/2008)
Image
User avatar
dlbpharmd
Lord
Posts: 14460
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:27 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by dlbpharmd »

Steven Barnhart: Mr. Donaldson,

Let me join the others posting questions in thanking you for the years of enjoyment your books have brought me. I read LFB et al first in my freshman year of college in 1978 and wore out the original paperbacks several years ago due to all of the rereading I’ve done.

I’ve finished my second reading of Fatal Revenant and have some questions relating to the Elohim and the Staff of Law. (I learned long ago not to think I understand what’s going on in your books until I’ve read them the second time.)

First, in WGW Covenant asks Findail how Berek was able to get a branch from the One Tree without disturbing the Worm of the World’s End. Findail said “The Worm was not made restive by his approach, for he did not win his way with combat. In that age, the One Tree had no Guardian. It was he himself who gave the Tree its ward…” Yet, in FR it’s my understanding that the Theomach defeated the existing Guardian and then Berek made the Staff of Law. Was Findail lying? It’s been my impression that lying would be beneath the Elohim, no matter how cryptic their responses.

Secondly, since we know that the Theomach taught Berek about Earthpower and, I believe, guided him in the making of the Staff of Law and that the Staff of Law was made to “…wield the Earthpower in defense of the Land…(WL)” and that the Theomach, like all the Insequent, despise the Elohim because, as he said, “they have no heart”, is it possible that part of the Theomach’s motive in helping make the Staff was to constrain/compel/”wield” the Elohim for purposes they would not themselves choose in their self-absorption? This would explain much of their fear when they appointed Findail – since the Staff was formed to support and uphold the Law, their actions, as Earthpower incarnate, would be constrained by Law if the Staff were ultimately re-made. Infelice has been uncharacteristically informative to Linden, after all.

Thank you for your time.

OK, it's time to call a spade a *u**ing shovel. You've put your finger on a gen-you-wine, gosh-all-fishhooks Internal Inconsistency. A gold-plated Authorial Screwup. (I talk about it this way to deflect my chagrin.) But the facts are worse than you've made them out to be. This II (internal inconyougettheidea) is already firmly established in "The Second Chronicles". Findail makes the claims you quote, but the Haruchai state that there were a number of Guardians before Kenaustin Ardenol. Obviously they can't both be right. So I could argue that the Haruchai (being more human) are more likely to be wrong than the Elohim--which undercuts what I've written in "The Last Chronicles". Or I could argue that the Elohim (having a much older grudge against the Insequent) are more likely to lie than the Haruchai. But both arguments are just intellectual tap-dancing: an attempt to obfuscate the existence of a real II. The important facts, as I see them, are these:

1) I didn't do it on purpose. I simply screwed up. At the time, I was juggling so many balls that I dropped (at least) one. To pretend otherwise *now* is a self-serving rationalization.

2) This II exists entirely independent of "The Last Chronicles". It is firmly embedded in "The Second Chronicles," and it will still be there no matter what I do now.

3) I can't fix it. No one is going to let me go back and revise "The Second Chronicles". And I can't think of a way to resolve the contradiction retroactively that a) preserves the integrity of both the Elohim and the Haruchai in TSCOTC, and b) fits my current intentions.

At this point, all I can really do is throw up my hands. So-o-o--

I've decided to do what I believe is right for TLCOTC--and what I now believe I *would* have done in TSCOTC, if I had been smart enough 25 years ago. Admittedly, this exacerbates a prior II. But I choose not to dwell on that nagging detail. Instead I choose to revel in the freedom that comes from ACKNOWLEDGING MY MISTAKES and then leaving them behind. <rueful smile> The future sure looks brighter when it isn't chained to past errors.

As to your second question: certainly the Theomach aims to defy the Elohim. But it's perfectly possible that the Insequent have no real understanding of the true nature and desires of the Elohim. And in any case, making a Staff of Law to "wield the Earthpower in defense of the Land" does not in any way constrain, compel, or inhibit the Elohim (except for poor Findail, of course). Putting the matter bluntly: there's plenty of Earthpower to go around. Whoever holds the Staff can deploy MASSIVE amounts of magic without diminishing (even slightly) who and what the Elohim are. Sure, the Elohim have "issues". But they have no reason to object to any use of power that *preserves* Law ("the natural order," on which their own existence depends). If the Theomach's defeat of the previous Guardian had posed a significant threat to "the natural order," the Elohim would probably have done something about it.

Which is more than I actually intended to say on the subject.

(02/10/2008)
Image
User avatar
Cshaw71
Stonedownor
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:37 pm
Location: Roy, Utah

Post by Cshaw71 »

You have to respect an author who admits this, with any work that covers several decades can develop inconsistancies, George Lucas with Star Wars, the Star Trek universe are loaded with them. Considering SRD's evolution of this series I am more than willing to overlook minor ones. Quite honestly it has been 15 years since I read TSCofTC and honestly didn't remember this.

Refreshing answer considering the post-hoc tap dancing he could have done.
Try see it once my way
Everything Zen
--Bush (not the President or his Dad)
User avatar
Relayer
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Wasatch Stonedown

Post by Relayer »

SRD wrote:
Steven Barnhart wrote:Findail says: "It was [Berek] himself who gave the Tree its ward…”
Findail makes the claims you quote, but the Haruchai state that there were a number of Guardians before Kenaustin Ardenol. Obviously they can't both be right.
I agree. SRD is willing to admit his error and move on. Obviously implied is that he's asking us to do the same...

What I find interesting is in the parts I quoted above. I don't see that they're mutually exclusive. Berek could have first placed the Guardian, and then there have been a number of them since then, making both Findail and the Haruchai correct. Or does Findail also say that Kenaustin is the first Guardian?

I don't think any of us caught that as an error... only the discrepancy between whether there was a Guardian when Berek and Theomach got there.
"History is a myth men have agreed upon." - Napoleon

Image
User avatar
Usivius
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2767
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:09 pm

Post by Usivius »

:Hail:
wow. kudos for the question and doubly so for the extremely honest answer. That's fantastic. not the mistake, but the admission and explanation.
I admire the man.
:)
~...with a floating smile and a light blue sponge...~
Borillar
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:03 pm

Post by Borillar »

I have the same question. Why isn't the following timeline possible?

1. Berek places first guardian.

2. Second guardian takes over for first guardian.

3. Third guardian takes over for second guardian.

4. Theomach defeats third guardian.

5. Berek makes the Staff of Law.

I suppose the tricky part of *that* scenario is that the Worm would've been made restive by the Theomach's defeat of the third guardian...
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

I cannot find any reference in the book where it says that there were a number of Guardian's before Kenaustin.

Brinn only says, ""I am who I am. Ak-Haru Kenaustin Ardenol. The Guardian of the One Tree. Brinn of the Haruchai. And many other names. Thus am I renewed from age to age, until the end."

What the heck was SRD talking about when he said, "the Haruchai state that there were a number of Guardians before Kenaustin Ardenol" ???

I don't see any Internal Inconsistency at all in the Second Chronicles. Not in this department, anyway.
.
User avatar
dlbpharmd
Lord
Posts: 14460
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:27 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by dlbpharmd »

Borillar wrote:I have the same question. Why isn't the following timeline possible?

1. Berek places first guardian.

2. Second guardian takes over for first guardian.

3. Third guardian takes over for second guardian.

4. Theomach defeats third guardian.

5. Berek makes the Staff of Law.

I suppose the tricky part of *that* scenario is that the Worm would've been made restive by the Theomach's defeat of the third guardian...
This timeline makes no sense to me - how could Berek place a guardian prior to arriving at the One Tree with the Theomach?
Image
User avatar
Caesar
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Post by Caesar »

From GI:
I've decided to do what I believe is right for TLCOTC--and what I now believe I *would* have done in TSCOTC, if I had been smart enough 25 years ago. Admittedly, this exacerbates a prior II. But I choose not to dwell on that nagging detail. Instead I choose to revel in the freedom that comes from ACKNOWLEDGING MY MISTAKES and then leaving them behind. <rueful smile> The future sure looks brighter when it isn't chained to past errors.

As to your second question: certainly the Theomach aims to defy the Elohim. But it's perfectly possible that the Insequent have no real understanding of the true nature and desires of the Elohim. And in any case, making a Staff of Law to "wield the Earthpower in defense of the Land" does not in any way constrain, compel, or inhibit the Elohim (except for poor Findail, of course). Putting the matter bluntly: there's plenty of Earthpower to go around. Whoever holds the Staff can deploy MASSIVE amounts of magic without diminishing (even slightly) who and what the Elohim are. Sure, the Elohim have "issues". But they have no reason to object to any use of power that *preserves* Law ("the natural order," on which their own existence depends). If the Theomach's defeat of the previous Guardian had posed a significant threat to "the natural order," the Elohim would probably have done something about it.
I think SRD wants us to move past this one. Clearly he made a mistake. Okay. How about this? Can we let SRD be human? There have been some excellent theories thrown about here in this thread, but they have all been shot down by the Big Man Himself (SRD).

I'll stop ranting now... :D
Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem.
Fratres, quod in vitae spatium agimus in aeternum resonat.
Vis et Honor.
Borillar
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:03 pm

Post by Borillar »

This timeline makes no sense to me - how could Berek place a guardian prior to arriving at the One Tree with the Theomach?
Because the Theomach would not need to be with Berek for Berek to seek out the One Tree; the Theomach could've simply told him where it was.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

dlbpharmd wrote:
Borillar wrote:I have the same question. Why isn't the following timeline possible?

1. Berek places first guardian.

2. Second guardian takes over for first guardian.

3. Third guardian takes over for second guardian.

4. Theomach defeats third guardian.

5. Berek makes the Staff of Law.

I suppose the tricky part of *that* scenario is that the Worm would've been made restive by the Theomach's defeat of the third guardian...
This timeline makes no sense to me - how could Berek place a guardian prior to arriving at the One Tree with the Theomach?
If we consider only what was said in the Second Chronicles, then there's no reason to require that the first Guardian, left by Berek, was also Kenaustin Ardenol.

It's only in the Final Cs that we learn that the Guardian Berek left was indeed Kenaustin Ardenol.

But this is all based on the premise that somewhere in the book, it said that there were many Guardians before Kenaustin. Which, AFAICT, it doesn't say that at all.

Which makes the whole issue moot.
.
User avatar
SGuilfoyle1966
Giantfriend
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:28 am
Location: Fort Mill SC

Post by SGuilfoyle1966 »

wayfriend wrote:I cannot find any reference in the book where it says that there were a number of Guardian's before Kenaustin.

Brinn only says, ""I am who I am. Ak-Haru Kenaustin Ardenol. The Guardian of the One Tree. Brinn of the Haruchai. And many other names. Thus am I renewed from age to age, until the end."

What the heck was SRD talking about when he said, "the Haruchai state that there were a number of Guardians before Kenaustin Ardenol" ???

I don't see any Internal Inconsistency at all in the Second Chronicles. Not in this department, anyway.
I think the answer to the many Guardians thread is here, in Brinn's quote. I can't think of a thing in the Last Chronicles on this point.

He has many names, and "thus" is he renewed from age to age, until the end.

I think The Theomach took out the First Guardian, the Elohim.

That does not mean the Guardian defeated by Brinn was still the Theomach. He would retain that identity, and for Brinn's sake, make it predominant.

But it does kind of bounce against what the Mahdoubt said about the Theomach.

It's clear that Brinn has the name, but also almost as clear, Ted (theo, for short), isn't him. If she calls his name, it is said he won't come.

I dunno.

I think we are missing the Internal Inconsistency.

I am not tied into the Elohim being above lying. They use the truth when it is convenient, ignore the truth whaen convenient, withhold the turth when vonveneient. Findail turned him self into a Sandgorgon to take out Nom, tried to dump him into the vats of the urviles, taking the Quest beyond its ken into the Wightwarrens?

Where does the nobility claimed for them come from?

They are utterly disgusting "people."

Also, infelice seems offended to be around the Harrow.

Why would Findail not lie JUST because his entire race is embarrassed to have been defeated 5, 6000 years earlier?
Do, or do not. There is no try.
I think you like me because I'm a scoundrel.
Irishman and Gamecock fan
native
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

Post by native »

Brinn seemed to gain knowledge and merge with the Guardian in some undefined way, and the implication (or my impression) was that this is how the same guardian renewed himself from generation to generation, but changed somewhat each time.

It may be that although they all retain the name of Kenaustin Ardenol across this process, they lost their Insequent nature across the centuries and therefore don't respond to the summons of their name any more?
User avatar
Rigel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2096
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Post by Rigel »

[I'm uncertain about this post about SRD's question in today's GI (no offense, Rigel) as I haven't read "The Dark Tower." Let the reader beware. dlbpharmd]
Spoiler
Today he wrote that he would rather be dead, than leave his readers feeling the way he felt after finishing "The Dark Tower" by Stephen King.

Please, no one tell me how it ends, but I had to mention this. Also, that I now have to read the entire "Dark Tower" series, just so I can see what he's talking about :)
User avatar
Relayer
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Wasatch Stonedown

Post by Relayer »

I haven't read it either. And I don't think I want to know what his answer implies!! But I don't think we'll be able to avoid it ;-)

In another question, he answered something that's not really a spoiler, but I'll do it anyway...
SRD also wrote:
Spoiler
Since the Vizard isn't really a player in "The Last Chronicles," I don't anticipate saying much more about him.
"History is a myth men have agreed upon." - Napoleon

Image
User avatar
Caesar
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Post by Caesar »

I have read the Dark Tower series. I agree that SRD would not want to leave us like that...don't worry, no Dark Tower spoilers. While I liked the seires in general, then ending did leave much to be desired. I think King just wanted to be done with the series and move on to bigger :?: and better :?: things.

I hope Last Chrons ending is more impressive (as I am sure it will be) :D
Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem.
Fratres, quod in vitae spatium agimus in aeternum resonat.
Vis et Honor.
User avatar
Seppi2112
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:06 am
Location: Los Angeles

Post by Seppi2112 »

I think the DT series got away from King. He never really knew what he was doing with it and so when it came time to conclude it there was no unifying theme except the passage between worlds for him to work with.
<i>"Kupo?"</i>
User avatar
Caesar
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Post by Caesar »

Yeah, it had a great start and a lot of potential...it's too bad.
Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem.
Fratres, quod in vitae spatium agimus in aeternum resonat.
Vis et Honor.
Post Reply

Return to “Fatal Revenant”