Kevin's Watch

Throughout the years and interviews, Donaldson has alluded to a number of things and has said a number of statements (no matter how ambiguous).

A number of things that come to mind, I won't include, but I can say that the Last Chronicles, thus far, is told through the perspective of Linden Avery, for better or worse. I think one simple fact of perspective that a lot of people are generally taking for granted is that Linden is the "good guy" while Roger is the "bad guy." That is all dependent upon perspective; of course Linden is going to appear to be the protagonist, it's her perspective.

Now, keep in mind, that Lord Foul has "whispered words of council here and there" and has waited for those words to come to fruition. Who did he whisper to? What exactly does he have in mind? Many people would think that the Haruchai (since they "serve him") and Roger (since he's the obligatory antagonist) would be whom words were whispered to, but what if they weren't the one?

What if, Thomas Covenant was the one whom was whispered to? Lord Foul is trying to escape his "prison," but what about Covenant? He too, is imprisoned within the Arch of Time, as he is the Time Warden. He can see all of eternity in an instant (according to SRD), and has been there for many millennia since the Second Chronicles. Wouldn't you think, that after thousands of years to an eternity of watching the grass grow would get to be quite tiresome? What is Thomas Covenant would like to escape as much as Lord Foul? He's been dead, but yet is unable to rest in peace. In essence, one could say that he is cursed or more so damned; unable to find peace and rest in death.

Which brings us to Roger. Assuming this, suppose that Roger is essentially doing what his father wants. He's given the chance to be reunited with both his mother and his father; completing his long-since broken family while, at the same time, shattering the Arch of Time and setting Lord Foul free. Freeing his father from his prison and restoring his mother's mind would be reason enough to justify the actions that he has committed thus far in the series, actions which have largely been committed without warrant. Why, why is Roger so interested in this? Why would he allow his body here to be shot and killed so he could be transported into the Land? This, I think, could be just that answer.

At the start of Last Chronicles, Linden is the possessor of not only one, but two White Gold rings (one of which she returns to Joan). That fact enough places her as an obstacle which must be overcome in order to achieve these ends. Her stubbornness to hand over, not only Joan, but also the wedding rings that she clings onto, despite them being a symbol to Thomas and Joan's love, would be enough to make her the adversary of Roger, Thomas, Joan, and Lord Foul. If you change your perspective and look at things from Roger's point of view, it's easy to see how Roger could be the protagonist and Linden could be viewed as the antagonist.

"Linden," Thomas Covenant gasped, "What have you done?
Why didn't you just let my son set me free?"

Once again, we are brought to the matter of the missing Creator. Suppose he spoke to Roger, giving him his task and purpose? What if he told Roger to STOP Linden from destroying the Land, and that he could free his Father without destroying the Arch of Time, if only he had the White Gold?

The Creator wants Roger to free Covenant without destroying the Arch of Time. Lord Foul doesn't care, he just wants the Arch of Time destroyed (which can't be done unless the Time Warden is released). Without the Creator's guidance, Roger would be more prone to the manipulations and influence of Lord Foul, which would explain his attempt to rouse the Worm.

What if this burden has fallen to Roger, to either save or damn the Land? It would give us a fresh character to see grow throughout the series, albeit through a different perspective. Roger would be the Angus Thermopyle of the Land. This would certainly be a major twist to the plot as we know it; something that I think needs to be done for this series to be as renown as the first. Something that the readers need, and something that would be expected by SRD. To use perspective to mislead his readers before ultimately revealing the truth, which is vastly different from what we are believing and led to believe. Literary twists. I personally think that it's a good possibility.

What say you?

A very thoughtful post, SB.

I think one place to start in this is: why would Thomas want to be freed? He is not like Lord Foul - he is not a person from a larger universe imprisoned in a smaller world. He is a person who is from a smaller world who has "transcended" (Donaldson's words) into a larger one. Foul has an eternity to get back to; Covanant has nothing to go back to, he is dead.

Covenant may object to Linden's actions, but I don't think it comes from wanting to be freed. Covenant's learned the hard way, too many times, that he cannot shirk his burdens, so I don't think he feels trapped, either.

I think, if anything, he was content with his afterlife. He said he would be content to be the Arch of Time forever. And he asked not to be resurrected the last time he spoke. If anything, he resents being brought back to life because he was content where he was, I feel. (And yet, did he not ask Linden to do what she has done?)

Meanwhile, Roger has burned too many bridges for me to ever be able to consider him a misunderstood good guy. He is ruled by fear. He uses his mother like a thing. His choice of four-letter words sheds light on the nature of his soul. He kidnapped Linden's son, and then deceived Linden by pretending to be her dead lover. His professed reason was to free Foul, and thereby make himself immortal in the process.

He asked Linden to cut off her own hand.

Nope. I cannot by it. Sometimes, if it looks like dung, smells like dung, and tastes like dung, it is dung.

Does Roger view himself as a protagonist, and Linden an antagonist? Assuredly. Every evil person in the world views good as an obstacle to their desires. Do not even the Ravers consider themselves enlightenment incarnate? This is hardly enough to justify changing our allegience.

That all being said, I see a chance for Roger to redeem himself before the End. Esmer himself said, "That which appears evil need not have been so from the beginning, and need not remain so until the end." The fact that he said this in response to Linden's asking questions about Roger's arrival in Revelstone shouts to me. And did not the ur-viles change their weird?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Thomas is reconciled with his son before the end? Assuredly. But it may be a price to pay for Thomas, that he will not. He had a daughter that he never knew, and then lost. Perhaps the son will be lost, too.

Acceptance can mean anything, after all.

wayfriend wrote:tastes like dung,

Whoa whoa whoa whoa... whoa...

What exactly are you advocating here Shooter?

Seppi2112 wrote:What exactly are you advocating here Shooter?

It's an old joke. It ends with "thank god I didn't step in it."

Is Roger all that different now from Thomas in the first book? After all, Roger hasn't raped anyone yet (that we know of). His disdain and contempt is very much like Thomas in LFB. I can see Donaldson doing something similar to what Sweetbread has suggested.

There are simply too many bad guys for this possibility to not be on the table. We've got to be viewing some of these "bad guys" incorrectly, if for nothing else than the dramatic payoff such a twist would add. There's too much opportunity for the author to play with our expectations; to ignore this dramatic potential would be uncharacteristic of a writer of his caliber. Combine this opportunity with the fact that Donaldson is literally telling us that good and evil aren't quite so clear, and we've got to consider it. This is his bread and butter: reinterpreting value judgments to expose the naivete of those who hold absolute beliefs, whether it's the Haruchai, the Unhomed, the Old Lords, New Lords, Hile Troy, Elena, etc.

[Edit: I really like the idea of the old beggar talking to Roger. I never suspected that before. He either talked to Roger, or Jeremiah. Yet, Jeremiah has been zipping back and for between the Land and the "real" world for quite some time, and he doesn't mention the old beggar once when he describes that ability in chapter 3 of FR. I suppose he could have also talked to Joan, but I find that unlikely.]

wayfriend wrote:It's an old joke. It ends with "thank god I didn't step in it."

Yeah, I was making a Happy Gilmore reference... "You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?" .... "No...!"

Malik23 wrote:Is Roger all that different now from Thomas in the first book?

He asked Linden to cut off her own hand.

So yes, I would say so.

Well, at least he's not a pedophile who later has a relationship with his own rape child.

If you leave it as simple as bad things = bad things ...

The author has written much about Covenant's motivations, and a lot about Roger's now as well. He's convinced me that Covenant was a tortured soul in angush. And that Roger is a sadistic menace, only too happy to help Foul for his own gain. I'm taking that into account.

I wonder if Roger used to torture puppies as a child.....

Malik23 wrote:Well, at least he's not a pedophile who later has a relationship with his own rape child.

Since when was TC a pedophile? I'm sorry, but Lena was described as a buxom 16yo. She'd be tempting enough to any grown man.

Agreed, and I think that she actually came onto him first IIRC.

At no point did Lena "come on to" Covenant. Elena did, yes. But Lena did nothing more than some innocent teenage hero worship I believe.

great posting sweetbread and wayfriend.
My opinion on that is that although I know SRD has a lot up his sleeve, or cards not played yet, one constant seems to hold true in all his stories: that characters are almost always what they seem. SRD gives enough hints as to what they are really like from the outset, in thi manner it builds tension when you think they may do something that you have a chance to preict, even if you are not right. I can't think of a time when a character did a seeming 180 switch at a crucial moment (a la Agatha Cristie, or 'Usual Suspects', etc)
Take for example Eremis from MN. He IS the villain, no matter how sugar-coated he gets...

my point is that I think all the bad guys have been laid out for us (more or less) and the temsion will build on HOW and WHERE they will strike, not necessarily learning WHO the bad guy is --- regardless of narrative perspective.

Linden is destined to be the 'hero' in this, and as it seems to be forming, pairing with (in whatever fashion it IS possible now) TC ... and together, as a wonderful couple, they will be the tragic heros of this LAST Chrons...

That's my take on it too, U. Even when the story calls for amiguities or for posers, there's always some glimpse you get into their true character. For example, when you first meet Roger, you may wonder if Linden has an incorrect first impression of him. But when you witness how he treats his mother in Ch 2, you're pretty sure he's not nice.

Sure, there's always a chance in any story that someone is not how they seem. But it can't be every character, every time. Most stories don't involve twists where the bad buy turns out to be a good guy.

That being said, Donaldson's characters grow and change. Perhaps they redeem themselves, or at least they try to. They certainly learn how to live a better life. When a bad guy becomes a good guy the hard way, rather than through some sort of surprise reveal -- that's much more satisfying. And it's DEFINITELY more re-readable.

I meant elena, sorry for not making it clear.

I have to agree with most of the replies here. The Creator may have spoken to Roger; we don't have enough info... but if he said something like what the OP suggests, Roger wouldn't have kidnapped, murdered, etc. Part of the reason Linden is stubborn about releasing Joan is that she doesn't trust Roger when he shows up at the hospital. If he actually wanted to be helpful he would've gone through proper channels, and told her "Hi Dr. Avery, some old guy suggested I come talk to you about helping with the Land..." instead of the smug attitude he has.

And if that were the case, the original POV in Runes would likely have been Roger. He may be the Angus of this series, and may redeem himself in some way, but we're still in "early Angus" mode - at this point he's not a nice guy.

But I also agree that SRD is probably setting us up with our expectations of some of the characters. Someone that we think is evil (or at least self-centered), really isn't but we don't see it yet and is going to prove very valuable. And someone we trust is really gonna mess Linden up or something. It could even be TC, we don't know enough about who he is now. And we still really know nothing about Jerry.

He's been dead, but yet is unable to rest in peace. In essence, one could say that he is cursed or more so damned; unable to find peace and rest in death.

Is there anyone who rests in peace? Any of the Dead we meet still seem to be in conflict.

Well, at least he's not a pedophile who later has a relationship with his own rape child.

TC did NOT have a 'relationship' with Elena. While he admitted his momentary attraction, it repulsed him. He embraced her (at Glimmermere) as a daughter who needed a father's love because she was kinda messed up. He did NOT have sex with her.

Intriguing as the idea that the Creator communicated with Roger is, his actions do not reflect what the Creator would have inspired him to do. When he confronted Linden for the first time, he clearly asked her to do something self-denying, compassionate. He really didn't offer clear directions, either.

Roger does not act from compassion or self-denial when he kills people and kidnaps Jeremiah (granted, he might have thought so). And he had to have gotten information from somewhere on how to get to the Land. That seems to me to be up the Despiser's alley.

One of the best hooks in the Chrons is that the protagonists not only make the wrong choices sometimes, neither they nor the reader can be sure they are not serving Despite at any given crux. That makes it very relevant to a reader's life. Even though these are 'fantasy' novels, the psychology is very real. The tension built by whether or not Linden or TC is going to make the right choice (which always seems to be hidden or confused) is what makes the books so engaging.

This answer in the GI touches on whether or not Roger is really bad, and (I see it because I hope it) possibilities for his father being able to help him.

In the Gradual Interview, Donaldson wrote:I can't address much of this. But you might try thinking of Roger as his father's doppleganger. Roger has inherited his mother's legacy of fear (and self-abhorrence) rather than his father's (learned) legacy of courage. In that, Roger is rather like Linden--without the benefit of Covenant's intervention; without spending crucial time in the company of characters who are motivated by love rather than by fear. You could say that he just doesn't know any better. Fear, I think, is a natural and inevitable part of the human condition. But being ruled by fear is a choice. And it's unfortunately true that choices can be very hard to see or understand if people haven't been taught that those choices exist; if people lack role models for making those choices. I knew as soon as Joan decided to abandon Covenant that Roger would follow his mother's example. It's the only one he's had.

I don't want to say much more on the subject. But I'm confident that Roger has NO IDEA he's being ruled by fear. He isn't aware of the choice.

(03/05/2008)

SRD wrote:Roger has NO IDEA he's being ruled by fear. He isn't aware of the choice.

But he could be made aware of the choice. It may be too late for him to choose differently -- he may be too far gone by the time he figures it out. And I don't think he's going to turn out to be a hero; as others have said, that's too much of a 180 for an SRD character.

But I do expect some very interesting meetings between Covenant and his son.