Covenant as Lord Foul

[Zarathustra]

Ok, I know this has been discussed a lot. I thought we should gather together all information, GI quotes, guesses, and posts on this subject. There is definitely something here. Wayfriend has perhaps posted the most on this subject, so it would be nice if he chimed in. I'll kick thing off with one of the first GI answers I could find. It seems Donaldson is totally serious, but not in an obvious way.

I seem to remember coming across an interview you gave where you mentioned that in a Third, and consequently *Last* Chronicles, it might be fun (or words to that effect), to bring back Covenant as Lord Foul. Without giving away any spoilers, aka plot secrets, do you remember making this comment? Or, was it just wishful thinking on my part?

As for "bring back Covenant as Lord Foul." Yes, I remember saying that. And yes, I meant it. But it doesn't mean what it sounds like it means (I'm often deliberately misleading when people ask me about such things), and I have no intention of explaining what I meant. My purposes will become clear in the fullness of time.


(06/20/2004)

[thewormoftheworld'send]

TC will allow LF to possess him ("you are the white gold"). It will seemingly be the end of everything. But this act will give the Creator the ability to reach his hand, not through the Arch, but 'around' it through TC himself, as hackers do when they find a way through a computer's backdoor.

[rdhopeca]

I am not sure I see this happening. Foul is not a Raver...this sounds like something one of them would do.

[Zarathustra]

Another GI gem:

3 and last. It's no spoiler as such to note the long-ago statement that the FC ends with "Covenant becoming Foul." Seems to me that the only way that can make sense is if Covenant, Foul, and Creator all become each other in some way. Yeah, I know, RAFO... and you may even choose to delete this non-question as too spoily, and I'll understand.


3) I can think of quite a variety of scenarios which would lead to "Covenant becoming Foul" without bringing the Creator into the equation. (And there's nothing disingenuous about *that* assertion: it's a plain statement of fact.)

(08/12/2006)

And another:

In an earlier posting it was inferred that the “The Last Chronicles” ends with Thomas Covenant becoming Lord Foul. The writer states that this is “no spoiler,” which makes me think that you have confirmed this. I don’t believe that would be so? So even though this is a simple question, would you mind ending my turmoil and straightening me out on point please?


Well, I did in fact make that statement. In public. Thinking back, I'm inclined to wish I hadn't said it. But we don't get to live our lives thinking back. <sigh>

However. Like all of the public statements I made about "The Last Chronicles" years (decades?) ago, that one was designed to both reveal and conceal my intentions. Saying that "Thomas Covenant becomes Lord Foul" barely hints at the complexity of what I have in mind.

(09/14/2006)

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I am not sure I see this happening. Foul is not a Raver...this sounds like something one of them would do.

Yes, Raver's want power over all life. But LF wants to break free. He will take possession if doing so meets his needs. Otherwise, an act such as possessing someone would be beneath him, worthy only of his evil minions - kind of like asking the CEO of a corporation to sweep floors.

[Zarathustra]

Here's what we know from the above quotes:

1. this "equation" admission both reveals and conceals.
2. it's a lot more complex than a simple equivalence between the two.
3. it's possible (though not necessarily the direction SRD is going) for this equivalence to happen without involving the Creator.

So, let's take a few preliminary stabs at what this can mean, pointing out the directions of our inquiry.

1. What are the stylistic ways in which Donaldson "reveals and conceals" at the same time? He has done this before, many times. Perhaps if we can list some examples, we can develop general trends in his style of handling this type of misdirection.

2. What are the possible complexities? I like Wayfriend's theory that Covenant has been moving along a spectrum of strictly figurative to full-blown literal. This would indeed be complex in the entire scheme of all three Chronicles, but it wouldn't necessarily be any more complex in the Last Chronicles for Foul to be literally TC, than the original statement of equivalence.

3. Three could be nothing more than misdirection. I think perhaps this fan stumbled upon something close to the truth, and Donaldson went into "misdirection mode." Just because SRD can imagine scenarios in which the Creator isn't involved, doesn't mean that his story goes this direction. But for the purposes of this exercise, perhaps it would be helpful if we tried to imagine these scenarios (just to outline how he might be thinking), in order to determine the "rules" which could make such an equivalence possible.

[wayfriend]

I'll contribute two things.

First, this bit from an October 1991 Interview.

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.

First of all, the author here clearly indicates that, whatever is going on, its going on in stages. Each stage depends on the earlier stages, each stage takes it to the next level.

And then there is this mysterious "test of acceptance". Acceptance of what?

Covenant has already accepted that he could not save the Land. Perhaps he will now be tested if he can accept that the Land can't be saved at all.

But why resurrect the guy just to rub that in his face?!?!

Or ... could Donaldson here be referring to Covenant accepting Lord Foul as part of his self. That's what I believe myself.

And if we are progressing in stages, then the next stage must be something above and beyond where we left off in White Gold Weilder. At that point, Covenant has accepted that he and Foul are one, at least in some senses.

"You're just another part of me. Just one side of what it means to be human. The side that hates lepers. The poisonous side." His certainty did not waver at all. "We are one."

So what would the next stage be? Then again, what stage was he in then?

I have called it a "spiritual" stage. Covenant recognizes that Foul and he are cut from the same cloth, and that they're bonded by their choices and their desires as well as by fate. They are "spiritual brothers", if you will.

But that's my own opinion.

-------------------------------------

The second thing I want to do is reiterate the text in White Gold Weilder that I found suggestive. Yes, I posted this before, but if we're collecting it ...

But each assault hit nothing except the specter, hurt nothingexcept Covenant. Blast after blast, he absorbed the power of Despite and fire and became stronger. Surrendering to their savagery, he transcended them. Every blow elevated him from the mere grieving spectation of the Dead in Andelain, the ritualized helplessness of the Unhomed in Coercri, to the stature of pure wild magic. He became an unbreakable bulwark raised like glory against destruction.

At the same time, each attack made Lord Foul weaker. Covenant was a barrier the Despiser could not pierce because it did not resist him; and he could not stop. After so many millennia of yearning, defeat was intolerable to him. In accelerating frenzy, he flung rage and defiance and immitigable hate at Covenant. Yet each failed blow cost him more of himself. His substance frayed and thinned, denatured moment by moment, as his attacks grew more reckless and extravagant. Soon he had reduced himself to such evanescence that he was barely visible.

So: Covenant became stronger as Foul became weaker. Foul poured himself into his blasts, and Covenant absorbed them, until Foul was gone and Covenant stood alone.

So: Did Covenant, in some way, actually take Lord Foul into himself? His power, certainly. But what of Lord Foul's being?

Now consider this in light of all the talk of "consuming" that we have in the Final Chronicles, whereby beings consume others and gain their power thereby. And the talk of merging, as Brinn merged with ak-Haru, as Findail merged with Vain.

That certainly lends credence to the idea that this "absorbing" that was done is significant, and not just descriptive prose.

And it certainly would be a "next stage" beyond spiritual unity. It would be actual unity - Covanant contains Lord Foul. Or perhaps we should say that he and Foul have merged. He has accepted him into his being in the most significant way possible.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Or ... could Donaldson here be referring to Covenant accepting Lord Foul as part of his self. That's what I believe myself.

Or it could be just the opposite. TC has already stated that LF and he are the same. I did not see LF accepting that idea at the time. Just the opposite, the idea was used to goad him into attacking TC. And TC was not simply sniping him with an ornery sounding suggestion, he meant it: it was a knowledge he gained putting out the Banefire.

TC:"We aren't enemies. That's just another lie. Maybe you believe it—but it's still a lie. You should see yourself. You're even starting to look like me..."You're Just another part of me. Just one side of what it means to be
human. The side that hates lepers. The poisonous side." His
certainty did not waver at all. "We are one."

There's nothing worse than goading someone with a truth they dare not accept.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, I don't disagree with your post. But it leaves me wondering if this question even needs to be answered. Isn't their "union" at the end of WGW a complicated sense of "Covenant is Lord Foul"? How would their union be different in the LC?

"You're just another part of me. Just one side of what it means to be human. The side that hates lepers. The poisonous side." "We are one."

That's pretty explicit. I suppose it still leaves room for the "union" to get more literal. Or perhaps everything about their "joining" has already happened by the end of WGW, and now we're just going to see the results of that joining.

But if that's true, why is Donaldson pussyfooting around the issue? Why doesn't he respond, "Didn't you guys read the end of WGW? This question has been answered already."

So given his responses, it seems we're still missing something. What are we missing?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

LF did not take on Covenant's being at the end of WGW. TC is simply reiterating his Unbelief when he says "you're just another part of me."

But if true, is it true literally or figuratively?

TC took into himself LF's wild magic because, literally speaking, LF or Despite is immortal, he cannot defeat himself, or in this case, that which gives him reality or being, that is, TC. Doing so literally made LF weaker and TC stronger, and that is all the proof we need to show that TC was telling the literal truth.

[Zarathustra]

LF did not take on Covenant's being at the end of WGW. TC is simply reiterating his Unbelief when he says "you're just another part of me."

That's an interesting distinction, reiterating his Unbelief.

Yet, he believes in himself. He believes that this "Despiser" part of himself is real. So it's really another way to state the figurative/literal distinction, which you note in your next line (and Wayfriend and I have been noting all along). Following this train of thought . . . he doesn't believe in LF as a literal external being, but instead as a figurative manifestation of himself.

So when Donaldson talks about it being "complicated," I think this is the area we need to explore. Primarily, I'm trying to figure out a way to predict how it affects the narrative.

That's what I like about your distinction--how it follows up on a previous thread of the narrative (his Unbelief).

[thewormoftheworld'send]

LF did not take on Covenant's being at the end of WGW. TC is simply reiterating his Unbelief when he says "you're just another part of me."

That's an interesting distinction, reiterating his Unbelief.

Yet, he believes in himself. He believes that this "Despiser" part of himself is real. So it's really another way to state the figurative/literal distinction, which you note in your next line (and Wayfriend and I have been noting all along). Following this train of thought . . . he doesn't believe in LF as a literal external being, but instead as a figurative manifestation of himself.

So when Donaldson talks about it being "complicated," I think this is the area we need to explore. Primarily, I'm trying to figure out a way to predict how it affects the narrative.

That's what I like about your distinction--how it follows up on a previous thread of the narrative (his Unbelief).

When I say "literally," I mean that LF as Despite , that is, as that part of TC which hates lepers, is literally part of himself.

What is Despite? Despite starts as hatred (or if you prefer a lesser term, relative dislike or disgust), coming out in small ways, projected as anger for instance, damaging ourselves and our relationships with others. It grows from this germ of hatred for parts of oneself (mind or body), to hatred for others - and finally, it grows into Despite which is hatred for all existence. The Sunbane is a manifestation of Despite in the Land's Earthpower, potentially growing wildly out of control beyond the Land and finally huge and hungry and evil enough to encompass and corrupt the entire Earth.

Then there is Lord Foul. Is he literally real? Of course not, and that's partly what you're addressing. He is an archetype of evil residing within all of us, a living, breathing, but still only a figurative metaphor of evil or Despite.

The difference I've spelled out between LF and Despite is another distinction I hope we can all agree with.

By the way, TC reiterating his Unbelief at LF was no mere statement, as you know it was also an attempt to goad LF into killing him. Asserting his Unbelief at a critical moment is a trick he learned at the Colossus of the Fall when Elena almost killed him with the Staff of the Old Lords. It goaded her into using the Staff's power, instead of merely throttling him to death with its wood, which then released the ring's wild magic and destroyed the Staff.

You found an area to explore in the distinction between figurative and literal sides of TC. That is rather complicated, but so is human nature anyway. What's really complicated is the complex weaving of narrative between the various motives of the players involved in the novels. But if you want to take it to a deeper level than motives, you still haven't mentioned universal Paradox, as far as I know. The eye of the contradiction: the fact that metaphysical absolutes - free-will and determinism - can co-exist in opposition within the same person. Free-will and determinism stress their own peculiar necessities, and as a result character and personality are formed, each a little different for every person, in an eternal struggle to find a way to resolve this internal paradox.

[wayfriend]

TC has already stated that LF and he are the same. I did not see LF accepting that idea at the time.

And I think that's an important point. The process of unification can't be called complete until Lord Foul, too, realizes that he and Covenant are one.

Isn't their "union" at the end of WGW a complicated sense of "Covenant is Lord Foul"? How would their union be different in the LC?

I admit to being unable to express ideas well in this area.

In WGW, "You're just another part of me" has always raised shades of unbelief with me when I read it. That Covenant is, somehow, pulling in ideas from the premise that the Land is a dream. It's a dream, so people in the Land are really a side of yourself dressed up as someone else.

So I'm not exactly sure exactly what Covenant believes when he says this at the end. I can tell you roughly, that I think he means less than he and Foul are the same person, the same ego, the same id. But something a bit more than him thinking "I'm just like you, and your just like me." It's within that range somewhere ...

Does the end of WGW depend on Covenant and Foul being "one" in a more physical and literal way than "I'm just like you, and your just like me." I don't think so. And this, I think, has a lot to do with letting the Second Chronicles be the Last Chronicles. It has to be satisfying and not leading you to believe that there's more. So Donaldson wraps up Covenant's spiritual journey but leaves it at merely this.

But it is an ambiguous condition the author leaves us with. It leaves it open for more, but doesn't make more necessary. This ambiguity makes it hard to pin down exactly what Donaldson wants to achieve.

W.A. Senior has a now-infamous-on-KevinsWatch quote about all this. I think that it is worth bring up. It's traditionally been spoilered whenever it's been brought up ... so I continue the tradition.

Spoiler

In the First Chronicles, Thomas Covenant faces Lord Foul and defeats him. In the Second Chronicles, Thomas Covenant surrenders to Lord Foul and accepts him. In the Last Chronicles, Thomas Covenant becomes Lord Foul. Following the psychological paradigm through, what happens at the point that you become your own other self is that you become whole, and the universe is made new.

I've never read this book, and so I have no idea how authoritative this quote is. But it certainly bares on the idea that Covenant is transforming in steps, and it links the concept to the "end" of the Land.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I don't see what's so difficult about the TC/LF connection. TC states it outright to LF in Kiril Threndor:

You're just another part of me. Just one side of what it means to be human. The side that hates lepers. The poisonous side.

LF is the poisonous side of human nature. It is the side of people that hates, gets angry, gets violent.

[Zarathustra]

Is there any possibility that the TC we're dealing with is Linden's memory of him? Since the Land is a place where it's possible for the protagonist to meet internal aspects of himself or herself in an external form, perhaps all Linden has really done is brought her memory of TC into this kind externalized form. After all, there has to be some reason why TC keeps reminding her that he's dead.

If that's the case, it could be the "complication" SRD was talking about. Maybe she is "defiling" his memory by refusing to accept his death, refusing to let him go. She is being inauthentic in this regard, therefore she is turning the memory of her lover into something unhealthy. In confronting TC in an external form, she is confronting her own inauthentic relationship with this memory--her own Despite in the form of hating/denying the reality of his death. Thus, TC alive in the Land could represent a confrontation with this Despite, a perversion of the love she feels for him. This makes sense if you suppose Lord Foul represents her own hatred this time around, not TC's. It is the hatred of her loneliness and loss. If Lord Foul represents--for Covenant--the part of him that hates lepers, then perhaps LF represents--for Linden--the part of her that hates mortality (kind of the same thing, since leprosy often ends in death). And considering that Wildwood charged her with finding a solution to this problem of entropy and mortality, that seems to be her central problem, this time around.

That would certainly be complicated!

[wayfriend]

I could agree to that, Malik23, if Donaldson didn't promise us that this series is named The Final Chronicles of Thomas Covenant for good reason.

Memories don't need to resolve internal conflicts and be healed.

Whatever is happening, it needs to keep the dream/real ambiguity alive until the end. So ... if it is a dream, it must be Linden's dream. But if the Land is real, Covenant must be really alive there. And the distinctions must be blurred so we can never tell.

[edit to say]I think, if Foul represents anything in Linden, it is her dark desire for the power to possess others and use them like tools. That's the dark side she's consistently struggled against -- even down to "using" Anele.

(I can't peg Donaldson as a guy who calls love or dedication a perversion.)

That said, I can't see that going that far -- does Linden need to become "one" with Foul, too, then?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

The W.A. Senior (whoever that is) quote is brilliant. But why does SRD think that only the Last Chronicles raise the issue of acceptance to an important place? You can see it clearly for yourself in Kiril Threndor at the end of WGW:

She saw the Raver's lie. Only once had she tried to master death by destroying life. After that, all her striving had gone to heal those who suffered. Though she had been haunted and afraid, she had not been cruel. Suicide and murder were not the whole story. When the old man on Haven Farm had collapsed in front of her, the stink issuing from his mouth had sickened her like the foretaste of Despite; but she had willingly breathed and breathed that fetor in her efforts to save him.

She was evil. Her visceral response to the dark might of her tormentors gave her the stature of a Raver. And yet her instinct for healing falsified moksha.

That contradiction no longer paralyzed her. She accepted it.

It gave her the power to choose.

She ACCEPTED it, she accepted the contradiction between her inner raver and status as a healer and caregiver by accepting the evil within her.

Her acceptance served as a pivot point for Linden's personal apotheosis in this scene. It gave her the stature and power of a Raver, enabling her to fling off her Possessor.

As SRD said in one of his interviews, accepting and confronting your fears gives you power over them, thus granting you more freedom.

Linden's acceptance into apotheosis made the healing of the Land possible.

[Zarathustra]

I think, if Foul represents anything in Linden, it is her dark desire for the power to possess others and use them like tools. That's the dark side she's consistently struggled against -- even down to "using" Anele.

How does that apply to her parents? I thought the "evil" within her was the lesson her father taught her about the horror of death, and how she became so horrified by it that (paradoxically) she killed her mother so she wouldn't have to watch her die. Both sowed the seeds of a deep-seated denial of death, an abhorrence of that truth. One could view her choice of becoming a doctor as a denial of the truth of death.

Possessing people is just something she does because she wants to control things that are beyond her control (like . . . you guessed it: death ).

(I can't peg Donaldson as a guy who calls love or dedication a perversion.)

But remember Mahdoubt's warning about love and glamors. We can allow our love to blind us to truth, and to deny truth.

does Linden need to become "one" with Foul, too, then?

I think we all do.

But it's just an idea. I'm not sure how serious I'm taking it. I want Covenant to be alive, too. But then perhaps that's because I can't accept his death, either.

[wayfriend]

Possessing people is just something she does because she wants to control things that are beyond her control (like . . . you guessed it: death ).

I've always seen it as the other way around. Fear of death has led to a desire for power, and possession fulfulled that desire.

After all, her final crisis in WGW, not to mention her penultimate crisis at the Banefire, both revolved around possession, and enforcing your will on others at their expense. There was little to do with fear of death per se.

But remember Mahdoubt's warning about love and glamors. We can allow our love to blind us to truth, and to deny truth.

Yeah, but does that have a deeper meaning than "That's not Covenant, but I can't tell you"?

Still, I realize people persist in seeing Linden having love issues. I just don't see SRD tackling them as explicitely as I would assume he would if that was a real issue.

Everyone loves. Everyone fears death. There's nothing suspicious about that.

[Zarathustra]

Everyone loves. Everyone fears death. There's nothing suspicious about that.

Ever read Pet Cemetery?

I'm in the awkward position of defending something I'm not sure I believe. Oh well. Let me give it a try.

Mahdoubt warns her about love and glamors. Covenant warns her he is dead. Wildwood charges her with finding an answer to all things ending. Raising people from the dead certainly isn't that answer. That only works in magical stories. If it were that easy, then Wildwood wouldn't be so troubled by it. In fact, if it's just an issue of enough power, then Linden has already found the answer, because she now has that power. But violating the laws of physics (or even Law of Life and Law of Death) can't be where Donaldson is going. I think it's more about making peace with that which you can't change--which Linden clearly isn't doing yet. I don't think it's merely misdirection for SRD to imply that what Linden has done is problematic.

Not sure where I'm going with this . . .