Malik23 wrote:I’ve spent way too much time on this post. I feel very strongly about these issues as they relate to this story. Please don’t interpret my passion or the lengthy response as an attack upon anyone’s beliefs.
TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:. . .faith in those "religious" rituals which maintain his existence against leprosy; the doctors [priests?] in the leprosarium [temple?] preached to him that leprosy was the most important thing in his life.
In what sense was VSE religious? The VSE “ritual” was for self-preservation, not for sacrifice, worship, reverence, selflessness, or any other possible “religious” sense. TC lived his life according to a dehumanizing set of rules and behaviors which distanced him from his humanity and turned him into merely a “survival machine” (which is why in the first couple pages he is described as having a “mechanical” gait). There is no passion, no hope in this set of rituals, only a stubborn refusal to accept death. I see absolutely no reason to suppose that doctors are priests, or that the leprosaruim is a temple. Can you back this up with something from the book?
The part where doctors are priests is not in the book. The doctors and the leprosarium are part of the book.
All you have to do to see my point is to see this "religion" in the most secular terms. I did define "religious" in a previous post, perhaps on another thread and you didn't see it. It will be easy enough to find the definition again, here it is:
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religious
extremely scrupulous and conscientious; "religious in observing the rules of health"
But then, it is also possible to make a religious analogy work in a stronger sense of that word. Why? Well, where did the concept of "redemption" originate? You can't just ignore the religious underpinnings when those concepts are the very source of the concepts used to write the book - and even SRD admits that his religious upbringing is in the core of his being and cannot be denied even if they are secularized to the point where they are hardly recognizable as religious in the strong sense.
Please don't think I'm ignoring parts of your posts, I am hanging on to every word. Sometimes snippage is necessary for brevity but that doesn't mean I didn't read or ignored the part snipped. But if you understand that I already know about SRD's secular-religious point of view that is a starting point for understanding me at least. It's really enough to point out that there
is a deity or two portrayed in these books, and that "elohim" literally means "god."
Malik23 wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think the plot boils down to the fact that TC had to do something to free himself of guilt:
I wholeheartedly disagree that the point of these books is to free himself of guilt. Rather, I think it’s more about how to live with the consequences of being an imperfect, “guilty” person (in other words, a real human being)—i.e. how to resist the temptation of doing something extravagant and deadly (like the Ritual of Desecration) or something life-denying like the Oath of Peace or the Bloodguard’s Vow. These absolutist attempts to atone for one’s guilt, weakness, or imperfection lead to even worse consequences.
Innocence is defined by Donaldson as impotence, or worse.
TC did indeed free himself of guilt, for the crimes he committed, in the eyes of the people of the Land, and in his own eyes. He did not free himself of the capacity for guilt, his humanity, or his humility. He freed himself to return to his rituals which keep him alive. Recall that, wracked with guilt over such issues as the fall of his daughter Elena, TC had given them up completely in the "real" world.
You're talking past my point by addressing freeing himself of the
capacity for guilt, that which indeed makes us human as you said. That's not the same thing as removing guilt, atoning for one's sins (rape of Lena, etc.). TC did something which atoned for his sins, and washed away his guilt. He is still human however because he still has the capacity for guilt - and he is still a leper which is, in religious terms, significant of sin and punishment. TC never gave that up, he chose his leprosy existence over spending the rest of his life as a hero in the Land. In this way, he affirmed his core humanness and humility. I'm not saying that he affirmed any religion.
SRD is, after all, a humanist/existentialist, and he overtly writes like one.
But if you deny the covert Christianity inherent to these books you deny SRD what he called the very core of his being, the product of his upbringing in India with missionaries, and his listening as a child to a thousand sermons preaching about all these issues. This background, this core of his being, cannot be expunged, and it is present in his novels as a backdrop theme.
Malik23 wrote:Donaldson wrote:Such "Covenant"-esque ideas as "innocence is impotence" and "only the guilty have power" are inferences drawn from the basic precepts of free will. They might be rephrased thus: only a person who has truly experienced the consequences of his/her own destructive actions is qualified to evaluate--is, indeed, capable of evaluating--his/her future actions in order to make meaningful choices between destruction and preservation. Hile Troy is an interesting example. He's "innocent" in a way that Covenant is not: he's never done anything even remotely comparable to the rape of Lena. As a result, he's bloody dangerous. He literally doesn't know what he's doing: he hasn't learned the kind of humility that comes from meeting his own inner Despiser face-to-face. Therefore, in spite of all his good intentions, he makes decisions which bear an ineluctable resemblence to Kevin's.
Do you doubt me? Look at Troy's "accomplishments." If Mhoram hadn't saved his bacon at the edge of Garroting Deep, his decisions would have effectively destroyed the Lords' ability to defend the Land. He's just too damn innocent. He hasn't learned the self-doubt, the humility, that makes Covenant hesitate, or that makes Mhoram wise.
(07/13/2004)
Clearly, the goal isn't innocence. Nor is it a rigid, absolute purge of guilt.
Not what I said.
And I don't think Hile Troy was innocent, he was naive - but that's another topic. If he was innocent he wouldn't have paid the price he paid. That is perhaps why SRD used scare-quotes around the word "innocent" in the quote above. Hile Troy was
originally free from any burden of guilt, there was no stricture of such law placed on his existence in the Land. So he was free to pursue a destructive course in that sense. He was guilty of nearly destroying the Land's ability to defend itself, as you said, so his guilt was earned as the story progressed.
Malik23 wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Guilt is a religious concept, namely, original sin. This becomes, in the novel, the law which binds TC to his leprosy and his rituals.
Guilt is not a strictly religious concept. (It is also a legal concept, and it is a social concept.) To interpret it strictly in religious terms robs this concept--and these books--of their universality. I think there is plenty of evidence that Donaldson does not present Covenant’s leprosy as evidence of his “original sin,” something for which he must be redeemed. One example is the tent revival in the Power that Preserves. The religious people in that scene—who present this concept you’re advocating—are portrayed as mistaken and overly judgmental. Indeed, the people who preach such ideas are shown to be frauds who only spout this rhetoric because they want to extract the “offering” (i.e. money).
Another example is the general worldview of those living in the Land during The Wounded Land. The idea that people are
guilty simply from being born is presented by the author as a lie told by Lord Foul and the Clave. Sunbane is presented as a punishment for the people of the Land, a punishment that our protagonists, TC and LA, react to with abhorrence. The Sunbane is a distortion of the way things should be. Thus, “punishment for original sin,” is explicitly portrayed by this author as something undeserved and “evil.”
SRD wrote:A couple of people have asked this. Remember, I was raised and educated (through 11th grade) by Christian fundamentalists; so naturally I was thinking of the profound differences between the Old and New Testaments, specifically as those differences pertain to the relationship between God and Man (forgive the male word Man: it's appropriate in this context), the "covenant of law" versus the "covenant of grace." That this is apt won't surprise anyone familiar with the Bible. The "old" Thomas Covenant can't survive unless he abides by the strict rules of his illness (hence his Unbelief, his rigidity, his difficulty giving or accepting forgiveness). The "new" Thomas Covenant finds the grace/love/open-heartedness to transcend his old laws.
But I hasten to add that while all this is very "Christian" in its sources it is by no means "Christian" in its application and development. It was a natural starting point for me, but I have taken it in directions which would doubtless have horrified the missionaries of my childhood.
I truly believe, based on my reading of this passage from the GI, that SRD finds many ideas springing from religion to be abhorrent. However, SRD's religious upbringing, the fact that he states that the very name "Covenant" is a reference to both the OT and the NT, the fact that SRD himself states in the GI that TC's struggles in the Land represent his struggles with Law (the old testament) and rebirth into the freedom of redemption (the new testament) cannot be denied.
Malik23 wrote:On page 115, in the Wounded Land, Donaldson wrote:. . . part [of TC] raged at the brutality which had taught people like Sunder to think of their own lives as punishment for a crime they could not have committed. . . “
Donaldson wrote:"Original sin" is only one of the many distortions that I was programmed to accept without question. Since then, I've learned to think in ways that would doubtless horrify my parents (or at least my mother); but the templates underlying the beliefs I was raised to share still influence me. So I find it difficult to think of things like innocence or purity as being either viable or desirable. Hence my rather assertive comments on the subject in other contexts.
(10/10/2007)
So this brings up the question, “Why is Covenant ‘guilty’?” Ignoring the dubious status of his actions in the Land (rape, inaction, ect.), he is guilty of despair and despite in the real world (which then manifest themselves in the Land). He has lost hope, and has isolated himself from meaningful connection with others through the rigid “Law of Leprosy.” His life has become inauthentic, through his reaction to leprosy. Lesprosy is not his original sin. Leprosy isn’t a sign of his guilt. Leprosy is a symbol of his mortality, and his guilt comes in how he responds to that unattractive truth.
Leprosy isn't a sign of guilt? It depends on which social context you use.
Sickness in general certainly is a sign of mortality. However, what's significant in terms of the Chronicles is that TC chose at the end to return to his social isolation and leprosy rather than live out a life of health and heroic social stature in the Land. This was not an affirmation of mortality, but an affirmation of the "real" world along with its hard, cold realities such as social stigma and illness.
Malik23 wrote:TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Perhaps God seemed to be telling TC, at this point in the story, that even in his very dreams he is not worthy, that there is no escaping the inevitable and fundamental "disease" which goes deeper than leprosy or any physical or mental disorder, that he deserved his leprosy and being seemingly cured of it did not release him from the fundamental core of his being, his original sin.
My reaction to this interpretation vehement opposition. I’ll try to keep that emotion out of my post; but I do want to indicate the degree to which I find this antithetical to Donaldson’s story. It is a perversion of this story, in my opinion, a perversion that reminds me of the Sunbane itself, and the poor inhabitants of the Land who view Sunbane as their just punishment. Rather than spend more time arguing the issue here, why don’t you ask Donaldson if he thinks Covenant
deserved leprosy? (Let me know if you plan to do this, because if you don’t, I will.) In my opinion, the point of this series is so diametrically opposed to your interpretation, I’m literally astonished to see things like this posted on his fansite.
There is an undeniable Christian component to the imagery and language of this story. However, I think the purposes of this author is to subvert or reinterpret those Christian concepts.
Lol. Well, TC certainly CHOSE leprosy, did he not? And in this way he affirmed it, did he not? WHY oh WHY would anybody choose leprosy over living in the beauty and health of the Land, and moreso, choose NOT to live out the rest of his days as a hero in the hearts of all its inhabitants, and instead, return to social stigma and chronic illness?
I certainly will risk annoying anybody by putting such questions out there rather than merely putting my hands in my pockets and shrugging it off with a simple "I don't know."
[snipping the same quote from the GI I gave above]
Malik23 wrote:This quote gives his interpretation of law vs grace: these are personal stages in Covenant himself. The Christian imagery is a symbol for TC’s personal growth, not the other way around! Donaldson is using the weight or gravitas of this religious language tell a story about a character, instead of using a character to symbolize stages of Christianity. The latter case would be allegory (which he explicitly denies he’s doing) while the former case simply borrows from the heritage of Christian “myth” to imbue his tale with an archetypal weight and intensity.
Absolutely, Donaldson is certainly no religious CS Lewis, I agree with you there! I am already familiar with SRD's stance on this issue and have been for some time. I guess I expect my posts to be interpreted from my understanding, which is basically the same as yours, but I can't expect everything.
