Kevin's Watch

I was just thinking about the title: Lord Foul's Bane.

If I've never read the book, and I'm not a fan of fantasy or good with words...I really wouldn't know what a bane was.

So, what really is a Bane?

I see SRD meaning it as: power, evil warning, or dire weight on shoulders...

So, what really is a Bane?

By definition, a bane is (depending on how used) a killer/murderer/destroyer, sometimes a poison. It can also be murder, or ruin itself (as opposed to the thing that causes such).

The interesting thing about the title (and didn't SRD say del Rey came up with it?) is that depending on how you read it, the Bane could be the thing that Foul USES to damage the Land (corruption, through numerous tools), or it could be Fouls EFFECT on the land (claiming it as his own, in a way...his ruin), or it could be what is done to him in the end (he is ruined) or it could be the thing that opposes/destroys HIM. (TC, or White Gold, or the Arch of Time itself if you loosen the definition a little).
I hope it is intentionally at least 2 of these.
If you want just ONE answer, what was intended, it's probably somewhere in the GI.

Bane:something causing misery or death...

--A

Jeff wrote:The interesting thing about the title (and didn't SRD say del Rey came up with it?) is that depending on how you read it, the Bane could be the thing that Foul USES to damage the Land (corruption, through numerous tools), or it could be Fouls EFFECT on the land (claiming it as his own, in a way...his ruin), or it could be what is done to him in the end (he is ruined) or it could be the thing that opposes/destroys HIM. (TC, or White Gold, or the Arch of Time itself if you loosen the definition a little).
I hope it is intentionally at least 2 of these.

When I first picked up the book (wayyyy back) and read the title, my immediate impression was that the Bane was something that Foul was using to damage/destroy the land. After reading the novel I got the impression that the Bane could also refer to TC being the possessor of the white gold.

So for me "Bane" has a duality of meaning in relation to the book and the title... Lord Foul being the Bane in The Land and Covenant being the "Bane" in Foul's a*se.

A bane, according Oxford, is...

bane

• noun a cause of great distress or annoyance.

— ORIGIN Old English, "thing causing death, poison".

Aside from the definition, I always took Lord Foul's Bane to mean the Bane of Lord Foul, as in, what caused him annoyance, i.e Covenant/White Gold. Never the other way 'round...although admittedly I can see how it could be taken as such.

The real reason, though, is probably because in LFB we never really see Lord Foul, well, being a "Bane" to the Land. Sure, we gather he's an evil guy and stuff, but it's mainly Drool who is the big baddie. If, say, the Illearth War had been called such, I'd be more inclined to see it as the suffering Lord Foul inflicted on the land.

As the GI makes clear though, SRD didn't chose the title and man who did is dead now. So...yeah, we'll never know for certain.

Attest wrote:A bane, according Oxford, is...

bane
• noun a cause of great distress or annoyance.
— ORIGIN Old English, "thing causing death, poison".

I think it would be fair to say that, in the modern tradition of the fantasy genre, a bane has a more specific meaning.

It is "the thing that brings about your ruin".

It can be a person, an object, or even a trait of the person ruined.

There is a connotation that bane-ness (if you will) occurs within a context of a specific person. I have my bane, you have your bane, but nothing is in and of itself a bane. Sort of like, I have a friend, you have a friend, but no one is in and of themselves a friend.

(And I say that despite the Chronicles referring to banes planted by Foul in the Earth while the Creator wasn't looking. Clearly the context here is that the Land/Earth has banes, and these are they.)

There's often a connotation that fate is involved. In fantasy, often a person is fated, prophesied, or doomed to be someone's bane. There's an inevitability to it -- you can run, you can hide, but your bane will eventually get you. A bane isn't "the thing that might bring about your ruin", or even "the thing that is trying to bring about your ruin". It will. Or it has.

A famous Bane is "Isildur's Bane". Which is the One Ring. It's called Isildur's Bane because it caused Isildur's death.

Many swords in fantasy are called something-bane. The meaning is obvious. It's for killing that something.

So... Lord Foul's Bane? That's Covenant, of course. Okay, not of course. But that's my answer. LFB is about Covenant coming to grips that he is prophesied to be the one to defeat Foul and save the Land.

But the title is clearly possessive -- it's the bane that pertains to Lord Foul. So it's not Lord Foul himself. It's whatever brings about Lord Foul's ruin.

The title Lord Foul's Bane is a double entendre. You cannot know from the first book that it refers to TC, white gold, or to LF's lusting after the white gold. So the title can also refer to the Illearth Stone which is explicitly called a "bane," one of the many banes of the Earth placed there by LF at its creation.

I always took it to mean Lord Foul's Message, his Bane is his power over the Lords in that even if they complete the mission, he still will win.

Let me throw this out there, seriously,

What if the titles were changed: The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant
1- The Unbeliever's Bane
2- The High Lord's Bane
3- The Despiser's Bane

LFB barely mentioned the Illearth Stone. It doesn't strike me that it would be titled for it.

Cov's Bane, from his perspective would actually be the White Gold and the people's need for him to be their savior.

wayfriend wrote:

Attest wrote:A bane, according Oxford, is...

bane
• noun a cause of great distress or annoyance.
— ORIGIN Old English, "thing causing death, poison".

I think it would be fair to say that, in the modern tradition of the fantasy genre, a bane has a more specific meaning.

It is "the thing that brings about your ruin".

It can be a person, an object, or even a trait of the person ruined.

There is a connotation that bane-ness (if you will) occurs within a context of a specific person. I have my bane, you have your bane, but nothing is in and of itself a bane. Sort of like, I have a friend, you have a friend, but no one is in and of themselves a friend.

(And I say that despite the Chronicles referring to banes planted by Foul in the Earth while the Creator wasn't looking. Clearly the context here is that the Land/Earth has banes, and these are they.)

The following may sound a little harsh or impolite, this is not my intention.

Perhaps you did not notice, but I deliberately quoted the old English meaning as well, because SRD loves to use archaic meanings, and it still fits in the context of what I said, as the current meaning also does. I just didn't expand upon such because I thought it unnecessary.
Furthermore, something that causes "great distress" can mean something that will kill you, can it not?

There's often a connotation that fate is involved. In fantasy, often a person is fated, prophesied, or doomed to be someone's bane. There's an inevitability to it -- you can run, you can hide, but your bane will eventually get you. A bane isn't "the thing that might bring about your ruin", or even "the thing that is trying to bring about your ruin". It will. Or it has.

I know.

A famous Bane is "Isildur's Bane". Which is the One Ring. It's called Isildur's Bane because it caused Isildur's death.

Many swords in fantasy are called something-bane. The meaning is obvious. It's for killing that something.

I know.

So... Lord Foul's Bane? That's Covenant, of course. Okay, not of course. But that's my answer. LFB is about Covenant coming to grips that he is prophesied to be the one to defeat Foul and save the Land.

But the title is clearly possessive -- it's the bane that pertains to Lord Foul. So it's not Lord Foul himself. It's whatever brings about Lord Foul's ruin.

Didn't I say this in not so many words?

I don't mind you stating your opinion, but let's not pretend you were amending anything I had to say, which is implied by the quotation tags.

hmmm..this actually turned into a topic?
I stand by what I said. My dictionary has a short paragraph of definition.
You can choose whatever meaning you want, obviously, but my feeling is if you think it's only ONE, you're being reductive, and I'm all in favor of complexity.
The title clearly is possessive as someone (wayfriend?) said, but just as clearly, one 'possesses' what one does.
And while bane has a traditional fantasy meaning, SRD fairly commonly 'plays' with, as well as within the tradition.

wayfriend wrote:LFB barely mentioned the Illearth Stone. It doesn't strike me that it would be titled for it.

I'm not disagreeing with you. However, LFB doesn't make TC out to be some kind of thorn in his side either. In fact, with TC's aid the Lords recovered the Staff of Law just as LF had planned it.

The Illearth Stone was referred to eight times in LFB (seven times if we don't count TC's repetition of LF's message to the Lords.) And as you can see from some of the quotes below, it does play a role in the book and is not just mentioned in passing.

"And there are banes buried in the deeps of the Earth too potent and terrible for any mortal to control. They would make of the universe a hell forever. But such a bane Drool seeks. He searches for the Illearth Stone. If he becomes its master, there will be woe for low and high alike until Time itself falls."

Abruptly, she slapped the table with her palm as if she needed the sound and the pain to help her I speak. "Drool Rockworm has already found his bane -the Illearth Stone or some other deadly evil. With the Staff of Law, he has might enough to blast the seasons in their course!"

"How can we succeed? Drool has both the Staff of Law and the Illearth Stone."

He could hardly hear Prothall say, "This is the work of the Illearth Stone. How could the Staff of Law perform such a crime, such an outrage? Ah, my friends, this is the outcome of our enemy. Look closely. It is a mercy to take such creatures out of life." Abruptly, the High Lord turned away, burdened by his new knowledge.

Again, Prothall urged, "Surrender it. For your own sake. Are you blind to yourself? Do you not see what has happened to you? This power is not meant for you. It destroys you. You have used the Staff wrongly. You have used the Illearth Stone. Such powers are deadly. Lord Foul has betrayed you. Give the Staff to me. I will strive to help you."

he made himself heard through the laughter. "Illearth Stone. Power and power. I will crush. Crush." Flailing one weak arm at his guards, he screamed in stricken command, "Crush!"

"We have forbidden the tunnel! But it will not endure. We are not strong enough-the High Lord's staff was needed to make any forbidding at all. And the ur-viles are savage. Drool drives them mad with the Illearth Stone."

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:However, LFB doesn't make TC out to be some kind of thorn in his side either.

I have to respectfully disagree. A large part of LFB centers around Covenant's rejection of the idea that he has been chosen to defeat Foul and save the Land. ... that he is Lord Foul's bane.

And the Despiser all but says "You are my bane."

In [u]Lord Foul's Bane[/u] was wrote:"He intends you to be my final foe. He chose, groveler, with a might in your hands such as no mortal has ever held before - chose you to destroy me. "

wayfriend wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:However, LFB doesn't make TC out to be some kind of thorn in his side either.

I have to respectfully disagree. A large part of LFB centers around Covenant's rejection of the idea that he has been chosen to defeat Foul and save the Land. ... that he is Lord Foul's bane.

And the Despiser all but says "You are my bane."

In [u]Lord Foul's Bane[/u] was wrote:"He intends you to be my final foe. He chose, groveler, with a might in your hands such as no mortal has ever held before - chose you to destroy me. "

Too bad he didn't actually say "you are my bane." This isn't made apparent until the very end of the third book. Maybe the first book should have been called "Lord Foul's 47-years-in-the-Future Bane."

How bout, Lord Fou's Insight.

Dun-dun-dun.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:How bout, Lord Fou's Insight.

Dun-dun-dun.

________________
How many Donaldson fans does it take to screw in a light-bulb?

I don't know.

At least LFB is a far better tital than SRD's original idea.

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:At least LFB is a far better tital than SRD's original idea.

I mean, I don't know the answer to your riddle.

Just sharing some info. I found this in the GI:

...My question is, and this goes all the way back to "Lord Foul's Bane" and has been debated back and forth of Kevin's Watch: what exactly was his bane? I contended that it was the Illearth Stone, because that is what Lord Foul coveted and the Stone, of course, was a major "character" in all of the First Chronicles. But, others have had other answers...Covenant, the ring, Drool. So, I just thought I would go right to the source and see what it actually was. Maybe it is all of the above? <smile>

SRD Response:

And thank *you*! I'm touched by your response.

Sadly, the answer to your question about the nature/identity of Lord Foul's "bane" is: I don't know. How could I not? you may well ask. Because I didn't make up that title, that's how. Lester del Rey imposed that title on the book for reasons of his own, mostly because he thought it would sell, not because it had meaning. *My* title, when I first wrote the book, was "Foul's Ritual," which I would cheerfully have amended to "Lord Foul's Ritual." But Lester wouldn't have it. And he's dead, so none of us can ask him what he had in mind.

(02/25/2004)