The Ranyhyn's abhorrence of sacrifice

[deer of the dawn]

In part 2 Chapter 4 (Heedless in Rain), Linden tells the Ramen how the Ranyhyn's intent in bringing Elena to the Horserite was to show her

the arrogance of Khelenbrabanal's despair, thinking to teach her that failure was preferable to violation...

But Elena had missed the lesson. She was deafened to it by the thunder of hooves, blinded by the communion of the Ranyhyn.... She already adored the great horses. From their rite, she learned something akin to worship for Khelenbrabanal. His sacrifice had seemed spendid to her: an act of valour so transcendental that it could not be tainted or surpassed.

The Ranyhyn saw this as abject failure leading Elena down the path to destruction.

I guess what bothers/intrigues me about that is that it was sacrifice that allowed Covenant to defeat Foul-- he laid his life down no less than the father of horses did, and it worked. Also Linden then took the violation of the Sunbane into herself, absorbing all the hurt and defeating it in turn.

Why do the great horses hate self-sacrifice? Because their own failed? What does that say about Covenant? Is that part of why they feared him?Do they not know how the Sunbane was ended?

[wayfriend]

Well, there's some question to what the Ranyhyn's horserites, their messages to Elena and Linden, were intended to convey.

To my mind, the way the Ranyhyn serve the defenders of the Land expresses a form of sacrifice. Once they choose, they give their will to their rider.

That, and your remark about Covenant, lead me to believe that it is not sacrifice that the Ranyhyn are opposed to.

I think that the Ranyhyn had tried to tell Elena that Khelenbrabanal's form of self-sacrifice was a bad choice: not that he sacrificed himself, but the form of his sacrifice fed despair rather than helped. First, there's the lesson about trying to appease a tyrant - it's just not going to work. Second, there's the hubris that one mortal, despite being the king of the horses, can defeat the Despiser. And third, that it was sacrifice that didn't accomplish anything, but instead became infamous for its impotence.

Covenant, Hamako, Honninscrave, Linden -- they purchased something with their sacrifices. And that happened because they thought long and hard about what they could do. They figured out what they could purchase with their sacrifice, and then achieved it. They didn't try to accomplish something as grand as the final defeat of Lord Foul - overreaching guarantees failure, and failure breeds despair, and despair serves the Despiser.

[dlbpharmd]

Well said, WF - I agree.

[Rigel]

overreaching guarantees failure, and failure breeds despair, and despair serves the Despiser.

Wow, I totally heard that in Yoda's voice

[dlbpharmd]

overreaching guarantees failure, and failure breeds despair, and despair serves the Despiser.

Wow, I totally heard that in Yoda's voice

I did too!

[shadowbinding shoe]

Was Khelenbrabanal all that arrogant? He basically admitted he wasn't strong enough to defend his people from the wolves. That only the despiser could call the shots in this game.

His mistake was to bargain with the devil hoping the devil would be honorable. The "arrogance" was a rape victim's belief that he can turn his violator into a good person (or at least not a rapist) by consenting to the rape.

[deer of the dawn]

Well, there's some question to what the Ranyhyn's horserites, their messages to Elena and Linden, were intended to convey.

Good points, and maybe Linden's take wasn't the Ranyhyn's actual intended communication either.

I think that the Ranyhyn had tried to tell Elena that Khelenbrabanal's form of self-sacrifice was a bad choice: not that he sacrificed himself, but the form of his sacrifice fed despair rather than helped. First, there's the lesson about trying to appease a tyrant - it's just not going to work. Second, there's the hubris that one mortal, despite being the king of the horses, can defeat the Despiser. And third, that it was sacrifice that didn't accomplish anything, but instead became infamous for its impotence.

Covenant, Hamako, Honninscrave, Linden -- they purchased something with their sacrifices. And that happened because they thought long and hard about what they could do. They figured out what they could purchase with their sacrifice, and then achieved it. They didn't try to accomplish something as grand as the final defeat of Lord Foul - overreaching guarantees failure, and failure breeds despair, and despair serves the Despiser.

So, sacrifice is good unless despair is involved. Okay, I can go with that, but how do they judge? I'm just asking.

[Zarathustra]

I guess what bothers/intrigues me about that is that it was sacrifice that allowed Covenant to defeat Foul-- he laid his life down no less than the father of horses did, and it worked.

Are you sure about that? If it worked, we wouldn't have a Last Chronicles.

Sure, you could say that victories against Foul are always temporary, so it wasn't really Covenant's fault that LF has risen again. But the Ritual of Desecration "worked" for a while, too. So I'm not sure what you gain by winning a temporary victory, if the result of that "victory" is worse than where you started. And, like I said, we wouldn't still require an additional answer, if temporary victories were fine. It certainly doesn't seem fine to Donaldson.

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)

So I don't believe that it's the nature of one's sacrifice which is the problem (e.g. "despair vs no despair"), because all self-sacrifice involves a kind of despair . . . it's a last resort kind of thing, even if you're at peace with doing it. After all, we're not talking about a mundane sacrifice like choosing to spend more time with your family instead of taking that high-dollar promotion . . . or the Ranyhyn serving the defenders of the Land (which is something they love, not a sacrifice--it gives their life meaning, similar to the Ramen serving the Ranyhyn). No, we're talking about a sacrifice made to (or with) the Despiser himself! This is a sacrifice which inherently involves despair. At the end of the 2nd Chrons, Covenant despaired of ever using power again, because he couldn't trust himself to use it wisely. That's an answer which involves defeat, no matter how triumphant Donaldson "tricked" us all into feeling.

He has a famous saying (I hope I don't butcher it): "Control is the circumference of passion." This story is all about that particular paradox--how do you live your life passionately without succumbing to the destructiveness which can arise out of passion, but yet still have enough control without becoming a robot? The 1st and 2nd Chrons dealt with either side of that paradox, respectively. In the 1st, TC's task was to learn how to be passionate again (i.e. access his wild magic) because he had lived too rigidly (law of leprosy) which cut him off from his life. In the 2nd, TC's task was the opposite--to learn control again, which led to a new kind of passion-paralysis where he once again wouldn't allow himself to use the white gold. And the 3rd will (ostensibly) find the middle ground of this paradox, utilizing both passion and control in balance to find an answer to "the problem of evil."

In this context, sacrifice isn't the answer because it settles on the side of self-defeating control (not using one's passion or power). Even though it can achieve a temporary success, it isn't the answer. I definitely think the Ranyhyn were warning against self-sacrifice; because otherwise we could have just stopped with the 2nd Chrons, and there would be no point to the LC.

[wayfriend]

I guess what bothers/intrigues me about that is that it was sacrifice that allowed Covenant to defeat Foul-- he laid his life down no less than the father of horses did, and it worked.

Are you sure about that? If it worked, we wouldn't have a Last Chronicles.

I for one am sure of it!

I don't think Covenant thought he was defeating Foul forever; he knew he could not do that since TPTP. He knew he was defeating Foul for another age or more, but not forever. But it was a necessary act nevertheless. Linden could not defeat the Sunbane while Foul was around. Covenant could not give Linden the ring while Foul was around. His sacrifice at that time made the victory over the Sunbane possible, and made his wish to pass the ring on to Linden possible.

(And, by sacrifice here, we have to remember that he clearly knew and planned on being able to continue existence and act as one of the Dead. He didn't believe he was heading for a final dark.)

But the Ritual of Desecration "worked" for a while, too. So I'm not sure what you gain by winning a temporary victory, if the result of that "victory" is worse than where you started.

Well, the Ritual of Descration, if you can even call it a sacrifice, has got to be in that category of ill-chosen ones that serve despite. Kevin didn't sacrifice himself, he sacrificed the Land and everything in it, in a megalomaniacal act of self-service. This is talked about in much detail elsewhere, but I think we can take it as a given that Kevin's Ritual was not only a tactical mistake, it was a moral one as well.

I could not put Covenant's sacrifice of his mortal life with Kevin's Ritual in any common category as if they were similar.

As far as temporary victories, sometimes it's the only open path. No one can say that any temporary victory is good; but in some instances it can be the best outcome possible.

(And Kevin's Ritual cannot be considered a victory; if it is, it is a pyrrhic one.)

So I don't believe that it's the nature of one's sacrifice which is the problem (e.g. "despair vs no despair"), because all self-sacrifice involves a kind of despair . . . it's a last resort kind of thing, even if you're at peace with doing it.

When I read this, I cannot help but think about Linden's reaction to Hamako's death.

"I'm glad you didn't," he said. "Never mind what it would've done to me. I'm glad you didn't for his sake." Thinking of her mother, he added deliberately, "You let him achieve the meaning of his own life."

At that, her head jerked up; her gaze knifed at him. "He died! she hissed like an imprecation too fierce and personal to be shouted. "He saved your life at least twice, and he spent his own life serving the Land you claim to care so much about, and the people that adopted him were nearly wiped off the face of the Earth, and he died!"

Covenant did not flinch. He was ready now for anything she might hurl at him- His own nightmares were worse than this. And he would have given his soul for the ability to match Hamako. "I'm not glad he died. I'm glad he found an answer."

For a long moment, her glare held. But then slowly the anger frayed out of her face. At last, her eyes fell. Thickly, she murmured, "I'm sorry. I just don't understand. Killing people is wrong." The memory of her mother was present to her as it was to Covenant. "But dear Christ! Saving them has got to be better than letting them die."

"Linden." She clearly did not want him to say anything else. She had raised the fundamental question of her life and needed to answer it herself. But he could not let the matter drop. With all the gentleness he had in him, he said, "Hamako didn't want to be saved. For the opposite reason that your father didn't want to be saved. And he won."

"I know," she muttered. "I know. I just don't understand it."

Linden didn't understand the same essential thing - that giving up your life to achieve something meaningful can be a good choice.

... or the Ranyhyn serving the defenders of the Land (which is something they love, not a sacrifice--it gives their life meaning, similar to the Ramen serving the Ranyhyn).

And that, too, seems to say that the distinction is missing.

The Ranyhyn do sacrifice themselves - they literally give up their will and bear their riders even into sure death. Yes, they love serving the Land and its defenders, yes it gives their life meaning -- but yes, it's also a sacrifice.

A sacrifice which gives their life meaning and which they do for love.

Just like Covenant's sacrifice. And Hamako's. And the Ramen.

It's up to people to define the meaning of their own lives. And you can decide that the meaning involves sacrificing your life to further the ends of those you love, when there is no other way than the one you pay for with the ultimate price.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, you make many good points, which make it obvious I need to clarify some of my own. I wasn't saying that the RoD was a sacrifice--I was saying it was a temporary victory (i.e. he defeated Foul for a time). But the price of that victory was too great, so it makes it clear that "victory at any cost" isn't the answer. And that point is especially clear given its temporary nature. If Lord Foul had been utterly defeated, it would be less clear that Kevin did the wrong thing. The Land did heal, after all.

But aside from the practical issues of the RoD, there are the moral issues, as you mention. I think this is more important, in thematic terms, than the practical issues. But what exactly was wrong (morally) with Kevin's choice? It was his despair.

I agree with you that there are major differences between what Kevin did and what Covenant did--especially if you look at the practical differences (healing the Land rather than destroying it). And I think this is one of the major points that Donaldson was trying to make, this contrast with Kevin (though misdirecting us along the way to think that TC was replicating Kevin's choice). So I also agree that this sacrifice was much better than Kevin's choice.

However, Donaldson is constantly showing us that it's not enough. Power isn't enough, or he wouldn't have written the 2nd Chrons. Sacrifice isn't enough, or he wouldn't have written the 3rd. Donaldson is constantly reinterpreting previous victories to show their inadequacy. And part of that, I believe, is to show how sacrifice involves despair--even when it seems noble. I don't think we can discount the Ranyhyns' warning. I think we will discover something destructive and dangerous about Covenant's sacrifice.

And, like I said, the eye of the paradox isn't sacrifice. That is too close to the Oath of Peace--to deny one's power because you are scared what you might do with it. In the control/passion paradox, it is giving up one's passion for the absolute control involved in vowing to never use his power again. Sure, control is one lesson that must be learned along the way towards the final answer, but I believe Covenant was wrong to forswear his power . . . and I believe that's the thematic reason we're now dealing with a Land where the Masters are depriving everyone of Earthpower, and the people themselves have no power. It may even be the reason for Kevin's Dirt. Covenant gave up his power, and that was wrong.

[shadowbinding shoe]

To reach a final solution the only answer is to start over. It's not complicated. The reason they all (the Creator, Kevin, Covenant in 1st and than with Linden in 2nd) all failed is that you can't destroy Lord Foul without breaking the Creation apart. The Creator told us this way back in the First Chronicles.

So it is the characters' compassion and mercy that is the obstacle here. They love the Land too much to bear the consequences of destroying Lord Foul. Rightly so, I'd say.

Or perhaps you believe some shackles would appear that could bind Lord Foul without going to such measures.

But could any dynamic world be truly immune forever to danger? Given eternity any evil is possible even if Foul didn't exist.

[Zarathustra]

SS, starting over wouldn't be good enough, either. As long as there are humans, there will be despite and despair. The "problem of evil" doesn't go away by starting over. You are thinking in literal terms, instead of treating the Land as a stage for thematic concerns.

But even literally, this won't work. LF isn't killed by destroying the world. He is simply released to the larger universe outside the Land's world. That would allow him freedom to other worlds, and a much larger arena of destruction. Lord Foul is immortal. You can't kill him.

And the reason LF is immortal (in literal terms) is because he symbolizes something that is endemic to the human condition (in figurative terms). He is part of human nature. Any solution to this problem will be personal, not universal. Though, since the Land is a representation of our main characters, it might appear universal to the Land . . . but this is only because the solution will be accessible to all humans, if they choose it.

The solution will be a balance of the paradox.

[shadowbinding shoe]

Realistically, can any solution be a permanent answer? Either the world (and its people) stops being dynamic or you have to accept that to gain something you must risk something.

[wayfriend]

If Lord Foul had been utterly defeated, it would be less clear that Kevin did the wrong thing. The Land did heal, after all.

Well, that would only be true if you buy into the ends justifying the means.

What Kevin did was morally wrong and the result of too much self-importance. Donaldson does explain this quite well in the first Elohimfest. See: Did Kevin really not have anything else to try other than the Ritual of Desecration? (9:26)

Contrast this with Mhoram's First Lordship, where he proclaimed that what mattered is whether they defended the Land to their utmost, not whether they succeeded.

Kevin's Ritual, I therefore believe, was wrong regardless of whether it succeeded or failed.

However, Donaldson is constantly showing us that it's not enough. Power isn't enough, or he wouldn't have written the 2nd Chrons. Sacrifice isn't enough, or he wouldn't have written the 3rd. Donaldson is constantly reinterpreting previous victories to show their inadequacy. And part of that, I believe, is to show how sacrifice involves despair--even when it seems noble.

Okay, I agree with the beginning of that, but I can't follow it to the conclusion. Sacrifice is only inadequate in the sense that it's not the final, ultimate solution to everything. But nothing can ever be, whether it be stopping Foul or world peace or anything.

But that doesn't make the idea of sacrificing yourself a mistake. It doesn't mean its driven by despair or a producer of despair. Honninscrave and Hamako and Covenant and many others achieved significant things, despite that they weren't everything. I think that's reasonable and sufficient.

In fact, if they had thought that they were solving the world's problems utterly, only they weren't, well, then that would be a mistake. That's Khelenbrabanal. That is, in a way, Linden's father.

You call it "temporary victory", which accentuates the negative. Every war is won with battles, and no battle except the last can ever bring ultimate victory. You can't try to win a war with only one battle. So you have to make progress in steps, even if progress is living to fight another day. All those victories before the final battle can be called "temporary victories", but they are necessary just the same.

Sacrificing yourself to win a battle in a larger war can be a positive choice.

Covenant gave up his power, and that was wrong.

Possibly. But then again, there were reasons why he gave up his power. Reasons involving his relationship with the Arch of Time.

But nothing's that simple anymore. The wild magic has been fused into me. I am wild magic. In a sense, I've become the keystone of the Arch. Or I will be—if I let what I am loose. If I ever try to use power.

If Covenant said that, and then concluded that he should never use power again, he must have feared for the Arch.

[deer of the dawn]

SS, starting over wouldn't be good enough, either. As long as there are humans, there will be despite and despair. The "problem of evil" doesn't go away by starting over. You are thinking in literal terms, instead of treating the Land as a stage for thematic concerns.

But even literally, this won't work. LF isn't killed by destroying the world. He is simply released to the larger universe outside the Land's world. That would allow him freedom to other worlds, and a much larger arena of destruction. Lord Foul is immortal. You can't kill him.

And the reason LF is immortal (in literal terms) is because he symbolizes something that is endemic to the human condition (in figurative terms). He is part of human nature. Any solution to this problem will be personal, not universal. Though, since the Land is a representation of our main characters, it might appear universal to the Land . . . but this is only because the solution will be accessible to all humans, if they choose it.

The solution will be a balance of the paradox.

Respect, Malik.

I have to agree that the victories and solutions in the Land have great worth even if not "final". I think Lord Mhoram would agree with that. Sacrifice is needful, no matter what the Land's salvation (temporary or not) will be.

Maybe the Ranyhyn were warning, not against sacrifice, but against despair. Especially in light of what Stave revealed about the Horserite- that they believed in Linden and would follow her, even to the end of the world- a statement which could be interpreted as despair, yet they called her the Land's hope! The Ranyhyn believe in her and offer themselves in sacrifice if need be. So maybe Linden's articulation of the Ranyhyn's message was not as they intended.

[ninjaboy]

The Ranyhyn, it seems have potentials which we haven't grasped.. Time travel, and quite possibly an ability to see into the future..

The Ranyhyh are a hard to define.. Earthpower Incarnate, granted, but irrespective of that, they are sentient, community based indivituals with vast intelligence and the ability to communicate and travel through time... By any definition, more than just mere animals.. For animals, of course, there is no death, just life to the end. Not true of Ranyhyn either, of course.. They sem to be playing the role of dragons in the more traditional fantasy novels..

The necessity of Sacrifice has been a constant theme, and as we all know the sacrifices given have been to help achieve victories, however temporary.. SD says that his characters will search for a different, more enduring solution, and I'm at a loss to consider what more the people of the Land can do.. And what that will mean for the ultimate impact of the chronichles. Now, we can see it comfortably as one that champions the healing powers of love, and the virtues of servitude and sacrifice, and not giving into despite.

[wayfriend]

I thought I'd post this here since I rediscovered this passage in the FR dissection. It's from FR, so I spoiler it, but it doesn't really spoil. It does seem to state SRD's view on why Kevin and Kelenbhrabanal were wrong -- or at least, one of his character's views.

Spoiler

"Attempts must be made, even when there can be no hope. The alternative is despair. And betimes some wonder is wrought to redeem us. ...

"Therein lay Kevin Landwaster's error - aye, and great Kelenbhrabanal's also. When all hope was gone, they heeded the counsels of despair. Had they continued to strive, defying their doom, some unforeseen wonder might have occurred. And if it did not, still their glory would have surpassed their failure."

To summarize: They chose wrongly because they didn't keep trying. As long as you keep trying, there's a chance for something unforeseen to turn the tide. And if nothing does, your legacy of striving would not be dulled by failing.

[deer of the dawn]

Realistically, can any solution be a permanent answer? Either the world (and its people) stops being dynamic or you have to accept that to gain something you must risk something.

Well, apparently that's what the Last Chronicles are about.

I thought I'd post this here since I rediscovered this passage in the FR dissection. It's from FR, so I spoiler it, but it doesn't really spoil. It does seem to state SRD's view on why Kevin and Kelenbhrabanal were wrong -- or at least, one of his character's views.

In Fatal Revenant was wrote:

Spoiler

"Attempts must be made, even when there can be no hope. The alternative is despair. And betimes some wonder is wrought to redeem us. ...

"Therein lay Kevin Landwaster's error - aye, and great Kelenbhrabanal's also. When all hope was gone, they heeded the counsels of despair. Had they continued to strive, defying their doom, some unforeseen wonder might have occurred. And if it did not, still their glory would have surpassed their failure."

To summarize: They chose wrongly because they didn't keep trying. As long as you keep trying, there's a chance for something unforeseen to turn the tide. And if nothing does, your legacy of striving would not be dulled by failing.

So, are you saying (or interpreting this quote as saying) that to "keep trying" excludes sacrifice, or includes it? Because I think TC's becoming the Arch of Time was an "unforeseen wonder" that was a result of sacrifice.

[wayfriend]

I would phrase it as, don't choose self-destruction out of a fear that have no other choice left.