Kevin's Watch

I realize SRD did not intend to imply that there was a literal Arch over the Land, but rather that time for the Land is finite; it has a beginning and an end. Just as at the beginning it developed (or the Worm was encased in its own growth), one could imply there is a declination leading to the world's end.

Speculation... what, if anything, was the Golden Era when the Arch was at its peak? It would seem that by the time TC comes along, the Land is already in trouble, it is already devolving and its inherent flaws are already leading to destruction.

Was it even before people emerged,

Spoiler

when the Viles were doing works of wonder, according to Esmer?

or after the Sunbane, or in the time of the Old Lords (which I think most likely, the RoD bringing about the beginning of the End)... What do people think?

If I interperate "Lord Kevins Lament" correctly he looks at the splendor of the Land from Mt. Thunder and then realises he stands eye to eye with the Despiser.

So are you saying that you think the Land just pre-RoD was the flowering of the Land?

I would say yes as far as humans are involved-other than that I guess it would be when the One Forest reached it's height and span.

Good point.

It would probably be around the time that the Old Lords and the people of the Land were aware of Earthpower and using it with love, trust and respect.

It depends what perspective you have - some might say that the 'peak' of the Land would have been immediately after it's creation and had slowly been getting worse since then.

ninjaboy wrote: It depends what perspective you have - some might say that the 'peak' of the Land would have been immediately after it's creation and had slowly been getting worse since then.

I think even SRD might say this...one of the central themes he speaks of is Entropy - everything is slowly breaking down over time and there's nothing you can do about it.

But if we only look at entropy, then we would assume that the Land started as close to perfect as it could ever be, and has been degrading since.

As far as the Arch analogy goes, I think it's just that... an analogy. Remember, it was never stated separately that Time is an Arch, but rather that Time is an Arch, and Wild Magic is the Keystone (or Capstone)*.

In other words, Time is a structure, and Wild Magic is what makes it work.

Like any analogy, it shouldn't be taken too literally (else it wouldn't be an analogy, but a description).

*The Keystone is the highest block at the peak of the Arch. If you remove it, the whole thing will fall down; because of this, when a certain part is vitally important to the whole which it is a part of, it is referred to as the Keystone, rather similar (but not exactly equivalent to) calling it the Foundation of said whole. Is that vague enough for everybody?

it depends on your point of view I think as many things...

If you think of earthpower itself, then the peak would probably have been some point before man came to the land, probably even before the need for forestals.

In FR linden notices the bounty of hurtloam in the past as if the rivers were running bank full of it. By the time of the lords it had already started to become scarce.

Since the source of most of the earthpower in this form seems to be run off from the blood of the earth under Skyweir, perhaps the source has already begun to dry up in the future of the lords and so on...

I'm gonna say..the "peak"of the Lands inherent health, was when the One Forest covered almost the entire Upper Land. The Earthpower of the One Forest had yet to be diminished by the acts of men. And, the Arch of Time isn't made" of wild magic; it's simply "glued together" with wild magic.

All righty then. If wild magic is the Keystone of the Arch of Time, and white gold is the catalyst (is that the right word?) of wild magic, yet white gold is not found in the Land... and if Covenant himself IS the white gold... uh... what was the question? Oh yeah. I guess I wonder how they all relate. Covenant seems destined to have become the Arch of Time because of his relationship with wild magic and white gold. I guess there isn't any point asking what would have happened if he hadn't showed up. But why bring in a savior from another realm, and then a savioress... wouldn't it have been more dignified (or something) to have someone from the Land redeem it? Was the Arch in trouble, that he needed to uphold it, or was he simply destined to become the Arch because wild magic needed a focus, a consciousness of some kind?

The Arch had a beginning, which implies an ending (otherwise it would have been a Circle of Time or a Wheel of Time.... wait a minute... ). Before the Arch, Foul was free, and if it falls, he is free again. Surely, the Creator is aware of this. Does he have a plan for afterwards, or is he hoping to keep it going forever so that Foul is forever trapped?

The title of this topic sounds like a poem/song.

If Time is an arch
And now is its peak
Will it's span contain
The answers we seek?

If Earth is asleep
And dreamers are stars
Will waking immure
Or break all the bars?

Does reaching into
The world we Create
Triumph o'er despite
Or hope desecrate?

A hero beholds
The paradox true:
Whatever happens
needs happen to you.

deer of the dawn wrote:All righty then. If wild magic is the Keystone of the Arch of Time, and white gold is the catalyst (is that the right word?) of wild magic, yet white gold is not found in the Land... and if Covenant himself IS the white gold... uh... what was the question? Oh yeah. I guess I wonder how they all relate. Covenant seems destined to have become the Arch of Time because of his relationship with wild magic and white gold. I guess there isn't any point asking what would have happened if he hadn't showed up. But why bring in a savior from another realm, and then a savioress... wouldn't it have been more dignified (or something) to have someone from the Land redeem it? Was the Arch in trouble, that he needed to uphold it, or was he simply destined to become the Arch because wild magic needed a focus, a consciousness of some kind?

The Arch had a beginning, which implies an ending (otherwise it would have been a Circle of Time or a Wheel of Time.... wait a minute... ). Before the Arch, Foul was free, and if it falls, he is free again. Surely, the Creator is aware of this. Does he have a plan for afterwards, or is he hoping to keep it going forever so that Foul is forever trapped?

In TWL, TC tells LA (words to the effect) that they have power in the Land, simply BECAUSE they come from outside the Land. They're not bound by the Law, and because of the "neccesity of freedom" thing. These two factors, combined with the power of the wild magic, is what made them effective. That's why they're the only ones with the real ability to resist & defeat LF. Everyone else in the Land has already picked sides, thereby rendering them mere tools of who & what they serve.This would explain why we needed heroes from outside the Land to redeem it. And the Arch was never in danger of falling down all on its own, but it was in danger of being destroyed by the primary bad guy (LF). TC was never expected (by either the Creator, or the people of the Land) to fix or become part of the Arch. They only needed him to defend the Arch, and nothing more. The fact that TC "becomes" the Arch (in a sense) at the end of WGW merely constitutes both icing on the "hero-saves-the-Land" cake, and an interesting tie-in to the Last Chrons. I don't think the Arch needed TC (or anyone else) to supply a "focus" or "conciousness" to it. The Arch is a mindless structure, like a stone bridge over a river. After you're done building it, it's done, and it'll remain standing forever. Unless, someone or something deliberately tries to damage/destroy it. In which case, someone who cares has to take active measures to protect/defend it. Lastly, from what I gather from the text, the Creator hopes to keep LF imprisoned within the Arch forever. There has never been anything stated to contradict that. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see LF break the Arch, engage in combat for control of the entire cosmos, and somehow be defeated/destroyed by either TC (acting as the Creators tool), or the Creator him/her-self, or both. Afterwards, it falls to LA to wield both wild magic & The Staff of Law to rebuild the Land & Earth. You can't have Earth without Earthpower, so perhaps Anele is the ready-made suppy of Earthpower to be used by LA in that effort. (Exactly like a spare can of gas when you run out of gas on a road trip). Perhaps LA gets killed, and becomes a Dead spectre, therefore Liand gets the Staff, and with Pahnis help, finishes the job of restoring things to right. Now THAT would be a wild ride !!!!

Why does the passage of time have to literally resemble an arch? Perhaps it is only descibed as such because it is so strong, and if you were to remove one part the entire thing would collapse. Could it be that the only things it has in common with an actual arch are its strength and permanence if left untouched?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I wouldn't read anything into the word "arch"; it is simply a phrase, the same way we say things like "span of time".

The two high points of the Land's history would have been when the One Forest was in its full sentience and then again during the reign of Kevin before his war with Foul.

So you're saying it looks like the McDonalds Arch?
Hmm.....

High Lord Tolkien wrote:So you're saying it looks like the McDonalds Arch?
Hmm.....

ick...that is just plain gross. *shudder* The mental imagery.....

No, I mean that the word "arch" is metaphorical.

When you are inside the forest, you cannot adequately describe what it looks like beyond "it's full of trees with lots of undergrowth and animals here and there". You have no way of knowing whether or not the forest is small, large, relatively round or square, set into a valley or on a flat plain.

The Elohim, despite their lofty position as incarnate Earthpower, cannot describe the world adequtely because they are inside it. Therefore, there are aspects of it that they will not be able to see or understand.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
The Elohim, despite their lofty position as incarnate Earthpower, cannot describe the world adequtely because they are inside it. Therefore, there are aspects of it that they will not be able to see or understand.

Like what's in the special sauce?

High Lord Tolkien wrote:So you're saying it looks like the McDonalds Arch?

Lord Foul the DeFrieser!

I will post this whole GI question, because it is good, but I'll highlight the parts that bear on this discussion.

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:STEVE M: Can you clear up certain questions about the Arch of Time. Not to sound to naïve but what precisely is the arch of time. The description given in the text is that the Creator needed a place to for his creation to be so that he created the arch to hold the earth within its confines. Since it is called the “arch of time” does the term refer to a temporal explanation, i.e. the arch begins at the time of creation and ends at the end of time/destruction? Armageddon? etc.? If yes, is there in fact an end of time/end of creation or is the arch in and of itself infinite?

The second part of my inquiry has to do with the concept of the arch or the Land being a prison for Lord Foul. According to the creation story, the creator did not realize until too late that Despite had infiltrated his creation. If the creator were to extend his hand and interfere, the arch of time would be destroyed and despite would be free to wreak havoc in the Universe, hence the necessity of summoning Covenant or Linden to the Land and hoping that the exercise of their free will and choices that are made independent of the creator’s influence will save the Earth/the Land. This leads to another problem does the destruction of the arch of time necessarily mean the destruction of the Earth? In theory, the creator could interfere destroy, defeat or at the very least fight Lord Foul with the result being the Earth and/or the Land continuing along their merry way but with Foul free to wreak havoc throughout the universe. The problem is this. Isn’t despite already present in the universe? Isn’t the very essence of the human psyche a never ending struggle between good and evil? In essence isn’t the terminology we use designating good and evil more symbolic of two opposing forces which yield a new outcome. I.E. thesis + antihesis = synthesis. Moreover, the universe itself reflects a never ending struggle between these forces. Indeed, in many respects isn’t creation and despite manifestations of the same thing? I know that these inquiries cover a lot of ground but the prime inquiry revolves around the fact that the Arch of Time doesn’t really seem to be a prison for Foul at all. Practically speaking, Despite has always and will always be free to wreak its havoc in the universe. In retrospect, I guess this isn’t a question at all but more of a request for a comment on these observations and how they relate to the Chronicles.

• Your questions go in so many directions at once that they’re difficult to address. For example, to say that “the human psyche is a never ending struggle and between good and evil” is enTIREly different than saying “the universe itself reflects a never ending struggle between these forces.” The former assertion is defensible, if open to debate. The latter is at best anthropomorphic, and at worst observably and even theologically suspect. So I’m having trouble filtering my way through to a subject on which I can actually comment.
  
  But the most obvious and necessary comment is that “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant” are a work of *fiction*, a construct of a human mind. They describe specific characters in specific situations in a specific IMAGINARY reality. They do not contain or even reflect “the universe”: in fact, they don’t pretend to do that. A statement like, “The Arch of Time cannot be a prison for Lord Foul because we see evil everywhere around us” is like saying--forgive me--“We know that oranges do not exist because I’m sitting in a chair.” (Now I remember that this is why I got so tired of “Creator” questions.) Your perceptions about the world, or the universe, in which you live naturally affect how you read a book--as they should--but it’s important not to blur the distinction between the book (a completely artificial fiction which--we hope--follows its own internal rules consistently) and the world in which you live. (And don’t even get me started on the UNIverse).
  
  The Arch of Time *is* a prison for Lord Foul because he is an atemporal (eternal; unfettered by time, causality, or sequence) being who is forced to exist temporally, and who cannot--at present--return to his natural state. Such an “unrealistic” state of affairs is only possible in a work of fiction.
  
  As for the Arch itself: well, I admit that the language is inherently misleading. It implies a pre-defined structure with--among other things--two necessary ends (because an “arch” can’t stand without two ends which are attached to foundations). I regret that. I simply don’t have (and perhaps the people of the Land don’t have) a better way to refer to what is actually a *process*; or a set of on-going rules or mechanics which simultaneously enable things like chronology and consecutiveness (without which life as we know it would be impossible, and the Earth of “The Chronicles” would certainly cease to exist) and prevent things like wandering through eternity, or being everywhere at once, or even being in two places at once. My best analogy is the act of storytelling. “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant” would be gibberish if I didn’t abide by a number of rules (like the Law of Time), some of which are so obvious that we don’t even think about them. Like sequence, linearity: sentences don’t actually mean anything unless the words are arranged in a very specific order. If you change the order, you change the meaning. And if you remove “order” itself, you remove all meaning. *That*, in its simplest terms, is the Arch of Time. It both imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE.
  
  I could go on and on about this; but I’m sure you get the point.
  
  (03/15/2006)

Although he doesn't come right out and say it explicitely, what I take away from this is that the Arch is a metaphor which shouldn't be taken too literally, nor should you extrapolate from it beyond what the metaphor attempts to address. So: The fact that an Arch is a shape with two ends on the ground and a high point in the middle is not something that you should extrapolate too much from.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:No, I mean that the word "arch" is metaphorical.

wayfriend wrote:Although he doesn't come right out and say it explicitely, what I take away from this is that the Arch is a metaphor which shouldn't be taken too literally, nor should you extrapolate from it beyond what the metaphor attempts to address. So: The fact that an Arch is a shape with two ends on the ground and a high point in the middle is not something that you should extrapolate too much from.

Ok. I am on the same page as the author himself. I can live with that.