Afraid of the last two books?

[Rigel]

(Waring: the following is speculation about the direction of the series. Please don't read if you don't want to find out what others are thinking...)




While I have yet to finish "The Man Who" series, and I haven't even started the Gap series, I've never been disappointed with the way SRD finished a set of books.

That being said, I have a very bad feeling about the way things are going here. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that one of two things is going to happen:

1) TC, still linked to the Arch (despite being 'alive'), comes to (or has already come to) feel that he is trapped as much as Foul is. Either directly (or indirectly through Linden), he acts to destroy the Land, thus freeing himself (and Foul, too).

2) Foul et al corrupt so much of the Land's essence and history that a correction or repair is impossible, and Linden decides to destroy the Land in a RoD to dwarf anything Kevin even imagined, hoping to form from the aftermass a new world of her own devising.

{3) Some combination of the above, possibly TC counseling Linden to make the attempt}

The title of the third book, Against All Things Ending, seems descriptive enough considering the cliffhanger at the end of the second. However, The Last Dark is downright frightening in its implications of how wrong things could go (think heat death, the result of entropy, etc).

After all, SRD has said something to the effect of, broken laws can never be mended completely...

[Beyondthebreach]

Hmm, I kinda think it is going to end with a little bit of "happily ever after". Linda and Jeremiah can't go back to their earth as they are dead there . . . so I think they'll both end up living the rest of their lives in the Land. I even suspect that Covenant will be freed of the Arch (perhaps a new Arch erected by Jeremiah or something).

I also don't fear the title "The Last Dark" as my first impression was that it implies "darkness" or "evil" or "despite" will ultimately fail - the Last Dark being the end of the despiser's efforts to free himself of the Arch - in essence, his decisive defeat.

[hue of fuzzpaws]

It is possible that things will go from bad to worse with LF/RC/A-J et all on the threshold of succeeding, however in the last crucial moments, LA will remember about Anele and will create a caesure to send him back to his original time, thus with his knowledge of what will happen, will be able to change it

[wayfriend]

One answer ...

... But how can we imagine that Covenant’s story will end other than triumphantly?

It is clear, then, that before The Final Dark ends, we, the reader, will be at peace with the loss of the Land. It’s just a matter of how you look at it. Somehow, someway, Donaldson’s job will be to show us how to understand the meaning of the end of the Land. So that we can acquire the strength to accept it. ...[ link]

[Rigel]

Wow, that's a great thread, with some good thoughts. However, I feel the need to point out something...

Linden's sense of loss is completely distinct from the other characters. In fact, there are thousands (or perhaps millions) of inhabitants in the Land, for whom the Land is their home. How are they to react to the loss of it? What of the youths, or children, who haven't even experienced what limited experiences the Land can still give them? Should they learn to accept the loss of their homes, their families, their lives? What exactly will the loss of the Land mean to them?

For that matter, what exactly will the loss of the Land mean to US? Will it be completely destroyed, along with everyone in it? Will it be somehow reformed, saving all of the inhabitants?

Before SRD can help us make peace with this loss, he needs to justify its necessity. I'm not saying he can't do it (after all, he's not your run-of-the-mill author). But it WILL be difficult for him, if that is his intention.

[Beyondthebreach]

If this ultimately ends in the loss of the Land, then it would seem that the Masters were right all along . . . I just can't see it.

[Zarathustra]

Some interesting quotes from the GI concerning "final" and "last."

. . . the use of the phrase "the last dark" in WGW. I quote, "she had not mustered the bare decency to cry aloud as she strangled her mother, drove that poor sick woman terrified and alone into the last dark." is this a reference to the final book of the series? Or just a turn of phrase that you particularly liked? Probably not the deepest question ever, but there you go.
[snip]
DrGonzo

Yes, the reference you noticed for "the last dark" is intentional.

(04/29/2006)

So if it's intentional, perhaps we should consider that the meaning is similar in both cases. The Last Dark isn't the end of darkness . . . though there is another use of "last dark" in WGW which wasn't mentioned in this quote, when talking about the "last dark" where the Sunbane can not longer hurt the Land. In both cases, it sounds like death to me.

Hmm. I suppose I should reiterate that my intended title for the last volume of “The Last Chronicles” is “The Last Dark,” not “The Final Dark”. .

(04/04/2007)

Again, he's very clear about the distinction and choice of words.

Thinking about it, this seems like an incredibly finicky question, but ... why choose 'last' instead of 'final' for the title of The Last Chronicles?

If I had to choose between the two I'd go for 'final' - rhythmically and phonetically it seems to me to fit better with the word 'chronicles'. What qualities does 'last' have for you over 'final'?

You say "finicky": I say "subjective," ("Let's call the whole thing off"--if you'll forgive an obscure--not to mentioned strained--joke). But here's how it looks to me. I understand your point about the rhythm of "final". To my mind, however, "last" asserts that there will not be any more "chronicles," whereas "final" suggests that there may not be any more of ANYthing. In other words, "final" sounds more, well, *final* than "last" does.

As I say, subjective....

(10/03/2007)

So perhaps there is "hope" after all. In one sense, it seems he's talking about death when "last" modifies "dark." But when it modifies "Chronicles," he seems to imply a mere chronological difference, rather that the idea of all things ending. He supports an interpretation which leads us to think that SOMEthing will be left. Considering how much importance he puts on linear time, and the dangers of corruption of time, I think that the "Last Chronicles" only means "the one that comes last in a sequence," not "the one where everything ceases to exist."

[wayfriend]

For me, I assume that the "end" of the Land (whatever that really is) is tied up with finding the final answer to Despite.

"Anything that lives carries within it the seeds of its own destruction." [GI]. Would it be fair to say that those seeds have to sprout sometime? If so, then the end of the Land may be a fulfillment.

Consider this super spoiler from W.A. Senior. It points in that sort of direction.

And then there was this interview question.

Do you see The First Chronicles as being the external battle and The Second Chronicles as being the internal battle, with The Land being both internal and external?

I see The Land as being the reflection of an internal struggle. I think that's what Fantasy is: turning an internal struggle inside out, and dramatizing it as if it were external. The two stories together are a kind of moral hierarchy: the first one is relatively simple concerned with muscle; the second is a test of sacrifice in relationships - Covenant can't save The Land alone in The Second Chronicles , and neither can Linden Avery. It takes what they can both give, and what they can both give up, to save The Land. I believe there is another test that which if I ever get to it I will try to explore: I guess superficially you might call it the test of acceptance, but it's a sequence: you can't get to the second stage unless you have done the first. That's how I look at it.

That obviously begs the question: Are you going to write The Third Chronicles? [link]

Which leads me to believe that "acceptance" is the final answer to Despite. And that "acceptance" includes acceptance of the "end" of the Land.

Ergo: Letting it all go.

Edit: Malik, my post crossed yours.

[Seppi2112]

I don't see LA enacting a RoD at all... if only based upon the description Roger gives us in FR about why Kevin enacted the RoD - because he wanted to be punished. I don't see LA punishing herself anytime soon.

[amanibhavam]

I don't see LA enacting a RoD at all... if only based upon the description Roger gives us in FR about why Kevin enacted the RoD - because he wanted to be punished. I don't see LA punishing herself anytime soon.

I do not know if there would be need for that. See the superspoiler above -

Spoiler

TC becomes one with LF. But something similar has already happened to Covenant - in the Banefire. He became one with the venom and emerged as a wholly new being.
If TC is part of the Arch and he becomes LF at the same time, then the Arch can be broken and the World will end but can be remade. And who knows that when he becomes one with LF he will not also become one with TC, i.e. The Creator? Assuming that he wasn't already, all the time.

[wayfriend]

Amani, if TC has become one with the Arch of Time then, in a sense, he has become one with Creation. I'd bet dollars to donuts that, according to Donaldson, that's just as good as being one with the Creator.

This is not going to be a cheap process of finding out that they were the same all along. These are going to be real spiritual journeys of the characters towards a spiritual unity. Just like the Banefire, and everything leading up to it, was.

Covenant has "accepted" Foul into himself at the end of WGW - both personally and physically. I'm betting that there's some internal struggle before that sits comfortably, and he can truly claim to be "one", and at peace with it.

[Zarathustra]

I don't have much to add in terms of personal opinion here. I've already listed my thoughts on acceptance and authenticity in the Ritual of Destruction thread. I think this has always played a very significant role in the Chronicles, so I'm not surprised that Donaldson finds himself heading in that direction as he wraps up his "solution" to the problem of evil.

I do have some neat quotes from the GI, though:

I'm tempted to say, Read the book and find out. But that might miss the point of your question. How is it possible for Lord Foul to recover his vitality? My attitude is, How is it possible for him *not* to recover his vitality? Of course, there are some practical points covered in "The Runes of the Earth" that I don't want to mention here. But the story of the "Covenant" books so far describes a couple of (I believe) temporary solutions to what we might call "the problem of evil." And as long as those solutions ("power" in the first trilogy, "surrender" in the second) are temporary, Lord Foul *must* return. In "The Last Chronicles" my characters will be looking for a more enduring solution. (I, of course, already know what that solution is.)

(10/30/2004)

It sounds like you may be asking: Is there a “final solution” to the Problem of Evil? And I suspect that there *is*--but only on a case-by-case level, one individual at a time. (And no, I don’t mean death. <grin>) On the other hand, I can’t prove it. All I can do is tell stories and hope that they convey a worthwhile degree of emotional/psychological/spiritual credibility.

(03/15/2006)

You could say that the Creator trapped LF within the Arch by accident. (There's some textual justification for this view.) You could say that the Creator was solving his own "problem of how to deal with evil" by putting the bad guy in prison. (I can't think of any textual evidence, but the interpretation itself is probably defensible.) Or you could say that the Creator was taking a more holistic, even Zen approach to the situation: how can a living organism (the creation) grow if it doesn't have something both to strive for and to strive against? This is an extremely risky way of being a Creator: it requires him to give up on the whole notion of "perfection," and to face the very real prospect of complete failure. But it may conceivably be the most *loving* way of being a Creator.

(11/11/2006)


Hmm. I have a couple of different reactions. One is: if you could see (already) how “The Last Chronicles” can be justified, why would I need to write the story at all? Surely my *real* justification is that I can see something I haven’t revealed to you? But my other reaction is very different. I don’t think of LF as a force which *can* be “totally defeated”. I think of him as an eternal and necessary being comparable to (if opposite than) the Creator. And, in my view, any “ultimate” solution to the problem of evil--if such a thing can be imagined--would require something more profound than Covenant and Linden accomplished at the end of “White Gold Wielder”.

In any event, it’s way too soon for any of us to know whether “The Last Chronicles” will succeed at being “a solid part of the original 6 books.”

(01/29/2007)

I wasn’t thinking in your specific terms--“‘preservation’ being a doomed concept”--when I planned any of the “Chronicles”. Of course, I was profoundly affected by Tolkien, who pretty much defined (and imposed?) the proposition that “the world is becoming less than it was” as one of the necessary characteristics of epic fantasy. (And if Tolkien didn’t do it, Tennyson did.) However, I wasn’t consciously trying to emulate Tolkien--or Tennyson--in the “Chronicles”. On a conscious level, I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down), and to suggest that it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can.

(12/31/2005)

Lord Foul does indeed want to escape the Arch of Time. But if his desire depends on the kind of piecemeal disruption that occurs in the first trilogy, he'll have to wait a REALLY LONG TIME before the fabric of the most essential Laws begins to unravel. Entropy is on his side: inertia works against him. Hence his hunger for an excessive application of wild magic.

(10/12/2005)

[edit: ok, perhaps I do have a few more personal opinions. I think his "problem of evil" and "the truth about entropy" are intricately tied. I think the final solution to the problem of evil is an identical question to Wildwood's question. ]

[amanibhavam]

Amani, if TC has become one with the Arch of Time then, in a sense, he has become one with Creation. I'd bet dollars to donuts that, according to Donaldson, that's just as good as being one with the Creator.

This is not going to be a cheap process of finding out that they were the same all along. These are going to be real spiritual journeys of the characters towards a spiritual unity. Just like the Banefire, and everything leading up to it, was.

Covenant has "accepted" Foul into himself at the end of WGW - both personally and physically. I'm betting that there's some internal struggle before that sits comfortably, and he can truly claim to be "one", and at peace with it.

Agreed. Insequent here, II-s there, I am sure we are in for some really mindbending soul journeys for the rest of the Chronicles. That's what SRD does best - investigate the darkest corners of his protagonists' psyches thus making us investigate ourselves (and cringe a lot in the process:)

[ninjaboy]

One answer ...
Quote:
... But how can we imagine that Covenant’s story will end other than triumphantly?

The problem I have with this is Covenant's story DID end in triumph - when he defeated Foul at the end of the 2nd Chrons.. Him being resurrected was a mistake which is causing the world to end... A terrible terrible mistake.

This is now Linden's story. And Linden being Linden, how can it but end in tears?

ASLO - TC would never attempt to break the Arch of time - if he feels trapped in the arch he would accept that - he knows he is dead in his own world and would understand the rights of the people of the land outweigh his own desire for freedom...

[earthbrah]

Still in the throes of re-reading the first two Chronicles, I came upon something in WGW that seems poignantly relevant to this discussion.

In "Physician's Plight"--after the Search and the final rhysh of Waynhim battle and defeat the arghuleh, with Hamako accepting Waynhim blood and, thus empowered melting the towering, croyel-controlled arghule--Covenant awoke to murmur dream-laced comments to no one in particular.

He was remembering when Mhoram had released him in TPTP from the summoning while Covenant was trying to save the little girl from the timber rattler bite. Covenant murmurs: "I should've listened to Mhoram." "I should've understood." He was referring to what Mhoram said to him as he released him from the summoning:

Unbeliever, I release you. You turn from us to save life in your own world. We will not be undone by such motives. And if darkness should fall upon us, still the beauty of the Land endures--for you will not forget. Go in Peace.

Covenant goes on to say: "I should've given Seadreamer some kind of caamora. Should've found some way to save Hamako. Forget the risk. Mhoram took a terrible risk when he let me go. But anything worth saving won't be destroyed by choices like that.

The whole time in the Second Chronicles, venom made all Covenant's use of wild magic terribly risk-filled for the entire Earth. Yet he wielded it when he saw it as necessary, (as well as when he couldn't control it). Which I imagine is why he eventually acceded and gave his ring to Foul. It was a risk, a huge risk, but it was the answer to his situation or condition, the one that he had found.
Later in the same chapter, "Physician's Plight", Covenant argues against Linden's insistence that she could've saved lives, including Hamako's, by taking control of the wild magic and destroying the croyel herself. But Covenant supports Hamako's actions by saying that he had found his own answer to his despair/situation/condition.

My point is this: If anything worth saving cannot be destroyed by making choices that may risk entire worlds, then the world of the Land will endure...in our memories (?). I even suspect that Donaldson put that little tidbit in WGW as a foreshadowing of the end he has in mind for TLD. Of course, we'll have to RAFO; time will tell. But I can definitely see the logic in the progression of answers to Despite: defeat it, surrender to it, become it and thus integrate it into the entirety of one's experience, becoming adequate to it.

There's some wonderful speculation going on here; the final answers to our speculations are in great hands with SRD. I trust them.

[dlbpharmd]

Excellent post, Earthbrah.

[Relayer]

Yep. I'll just add that's not the only place that's come up. During Lord Mhoram's Victory he thinks a similar thought, "as long as one soul who loved the Land survived, there was something to fight for..." And I know there are other places I don't remember right now.

And then there's this little tidbit:

imperishable--
for the beauty may die,
or the beholder may die,
or the world may die,
but the soul in which the flower grows
survives.

[SoulBiter]

I don’t think of LF as a force which *can* be “totally defeated”. I think of him as an eternal and necessary being comparable to (if opposite than) the Creator. And, in my view, any “ultimate” solution to the problem of evil--if such a thing can be imagined--would require something more profound than Covenant and Linden accomplished at the end of “White Gold Wielder”.

Reading that makes me wonder if perhaps LF and the Creator will again become one....much like TC did with White Gold and the Venom while standing in the Banefire.

[Fuzzy_Logic]

Earthbrah--

I'm confused. The comments from Covenant are saying that he should have used *more* power; the decision to give up the ring was a choice never tor aise power again.

Without going back and re-reading, I don't see how the relation between these two insights.

[earthbrah]

Fuzzy Logic--

I understand your confusion. Let me try to be more clear.

Yes, Covenant did claim that he would never use power again after walking into the Banefire. He also said that he wanted to pay a little visit to the Despiser, that there were a few things he did not understand; he wanted to explain them to him. (btw, I just love Covenant's conviction on this one, his audacity)

The point with my comment centered around risk. Mhoram risked a great deal when he let Covenant go in the summoning in TPTP. Covenant risked a great deal each time he unleashed the wild magic in the Second Chronicles as a whole. Hell, his decision to never use power again was a huge risk, just like his decision to hand his ring over to the Despiser.

But he apparently knew what he was doing, and what would happen when he did it (more or less). I think his apotheosis in the Banefire had in some way congealed his understanding of power, and revealed new knowledge to him. He had found his answer, like the eye of the paradox in the First Chronicles: surrender. And it worked. The Land was redeemed from the Sunbane and the Despisers malice, at least until the Last Chronicles.

And on that note: Linded has taken some terrible risks since arriving in the Land. Creating and braving a caesure! Wielding both Earthpower AND wild magic to resurrect Covenant by use of the krill. She's risking the Earth in more terrible ways than Covenant ever did (IMO), and yet the Earth remains.

Using power is risky, and not using power is risky. Either way, the Earth is in peril. But taking such risks will not destroy what is risked in the taking. Basically, it's affordable. Clear as mud?