Kevin's Watch

I have started reading Forbidden Knowledge. At the end of The Real Story Angus is called courageous for not telling the truth about the events that led up to his capture. But in Forbidden Knowledge he is called a coward because he supposedly thinks if he tells the truth to his interrogators then he'll be killed by the UMCP.

Can't something be both courageous and cowardly at the same time?

Rigel wrote:Can't something be both courageous and cowardly at the same time?

If there is a kind of paradox involved with the Gap series, as there is with the Chronicles, I haven't seen it yet. The paradox of the Chronicles is explicit, it is part of the Legend of White Gold.

Anyway, if Angus is both courageous and cowardly - which is indeed possible in the same person because people are very complex - he has to be both aspects regarding the very same thing. In other words, he has to be a living example of a logical contradiction in terms, in that, according to Aristotle, "A can be A and not A at the same time, and in the same respect."

If Angus were psychotic, then I could believe it.

Is he called both courageous and cowardly by the same person? I can see how Morn would think him courageous while Min thinks him cowardly.

variol son wrote:Is he called both courageous and cowardly by the same person? I can see how Morn would think him courageous while Min thinks him cowardly.

That was my first thought too. Whether it's a courageous act or a cowardly one depends on whose perspective we're sharing - or who we're meant to sympathise with at that point.

In many ways, TRS is Angus' story - so it makes sense that he'd be 'couragoeus' there. FK, on the other hand, is more about Morn.

CovenantJr wrote:

variol son wrote:Is he called both courageous and cowardly by the same person? I can see how Morn would think him courageous while Min thinks him cowardly.

That was my first thought too. Whether it's a courageous act or a cowardly one depends on whose perspective we're sharing - or who we're meant to sympathise with at that point.

In many ways, TRS is Angus' story - so it makes sense that he'd be 'couragoeus' there. FK, on the other hand, is more about Morn.

You can't fix an inconsistency in the text by making up ideas that aren't in the text.

Oh, it's you. I forgot. I retract my post then.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

CovenantJr wrote:

variol son wrote:Is he called both courageous and cowardly by the same person? I can see how Morn would think him courageous while Min thinks him cowardly.

That was my first thought too. Whether it's a courageous act or a cowardly one depends on whose perspective we're sharing - or who we're meant to sympathise with at that point.

In many ways, TRS is Angus' story - so it makes sense that he'd be 'couragoeus' there. FK, on the other hand, is more about Morn.

You can't fix an inconsistency in the text by making up ideas that aren't in the text.

what, different POV characters can't have different opinions of something?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

CovenantJr wrote:

variol son wrote:Is he called both courageous and cowardly by the same person? I can see how Morn would think him courageous while Min thinks him cowardly.

That was my first thought too. Whether it's a courageous act or a cowardly one depends on whose perspective we're sharing - or who we're meant to sympathise with at that point.

In many ways, TRS is Angus' story - so it makes sense that he'd be 'courageous' there. FK, on the other hand, is more about Morn.

You can't fix an inconsistency in the text by making up ideas that aren't in the text.

What, so for different POV characters to have different opinions about a person/place/event, the writer has to include a caveat in the text explaining such?

In [i]The Gap Cycle[/i], SRD never wrote:"From her point of view Angus was a coward, although Min accepted that from other peoples point of view he might be considered courageous."

Sorry man, but that's just filling up a work with needless words. We already know that different people have different opinions about things - this thread pretty much proves that. I did think SRD needs to beat us over the head with it.

Agreed. I'm reading the book right now and there is no external POV on Angus, there is just Angus. I didn't want to mention such an obvious point, but maybe it's been a while for some here.

I don't have TRS handy, but I believe the phrase used by SRD was, "he (Angus) had that much courage."

To me, that felt like faint praise. In other words, saying that Angus was referred to as courageous isn't accurate. There's a molehill distinction here that's becoming the proverbial mountain.

You only just started FK; just keep reading and take notes on the things that tweak your sensibilities. Maybe later you'll realize that your questions have been answered or that they aren't necessary.

ItisWritten wrote:I don't have TRS handy, but I believe the phrase used by SRD was, "he (Angus) had that much courage."

To me, that felt like faint praise. In other words, saying that Angus was referred to as courageous isn't accurate. There's a molehill distinction here that's becoming the proverbial mountain.

You only just started FK; just keep reading and take notes on the things that tweak your sensibilities. Maybe later you'll realize that your questions have been answered or that they aren't necessary.

Yes, he had "that much courage." But it was more courage than he started with, given the old Angus who would have, and should have if he stayed within character, done every cowardly thing he could to avoid imprisonment and especially to save his ship.

The Angus of FK seems to have lost his new-found courage somewhere in between novels, and his motive for not answering questions has also changed. This is the discrepancy. Reading on will not remove the discrepancy. However, I do find FK to be one of those novels that I just can't put down. So it's not as if this tiny discrepancy has mattered very much to my enjoyment.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

ItisWritten wrote:I don't have TRS handy, but I believe the phrase used by SRD was, "he (Angus) had that much courage."

To me, that felt like faint praise. In other words, saying that Angus was referred to as courageous isn't accurate. There's a molehill distinction here that's becoming the proverbial mountain.

You only just started FK; just keep reading and take notes on the things that tweak your sensibilities. Maybe later you'll realize that your questions have been answered or that they aren't necessary.

Yes, he had "that much courage." But it was more courage than he started with, given the old Angus who would have, and should have if he stayed within character, done every cowardly thing he could to avoid imprisonment and especially to save his ship.

The Angus of FK seems to have lost his new-found courage somewhere in between novels, and his motive for not answering questions has also changed. This is the discrepancy. Reading on will not remove the discrepancy. However, I do find FK to be one of those novels that I just can't put down. So it's not as if this tiny discrepancy has mattered very much to my enjoyment.

Come now, you can understand someone making a hard choice that doesn't work out well and regretting that choice? Angus only had enough courage for ONE of those. After that, he hit his reset button.

People progress and regress all the time. It's a natural resistance to change. A moment of courage for Angus has to lead to cowardly ones (and yet, doesn't it take some courage to resist momentum?). As you read, you'll find that for Angus to even consider the courage you're talking about, he's gonna need a helluva push.

The change would tie in with his new motive for not talking: his fear of being killed. I didn't mention that above. The changing motive is the key to understanding this change.

It's been a while since I read it, but I got the sense that "he had that much courage, at least" at the end of RS wasn't Angus's own impression of himself, it was the "narrator's" perspective. It was Donaldson's perspective--in the same way that all the "real story" talk at the beginning wasn't anyone's perspective . . . just the narrator's. So perhaps the FK chapter you're in now is giving Angus's perspective of himself.

Or, another way to look at it: he was brave for not giving up Morn, being selfless with regard to her. However, he is cowardly for not giving up himself, i.e. the secrets which would get himself the death penalty. Since Morn is "safely" away, he no longer has to keep secrets in order to save her. That's done. That was brave. Now he is keeping secrets to save himself. That's cowardly. His motivation changed between the books for a very good reason: between the books, we've switched from Angus protecting Morn to Angus protecting himself. So we don't have an Aristotlean break down of logic like you're suggesting. (But logic only applies to statements anyway, not people. People aren't logical.)

I think. Like I said, it's been a while. Perhaps if you could provide the quotes in their context, it might be helpful.

Before the truth is uncovered by the Amnion, the plot twists and turns around hiding the existence of Morn's zone implant because it is a crime. Originally, Morn is hiding its existence in order to protect Angus, not because she loves him or even likes him, but because they made a deal. He handed over to her control over her own implant in return for her not informing authorities about his crime, because he did not want it found on his person or on his ship, and because Morn and Nick had conspired with an insider to have the supplies planted on board Angus's ship.

Of course, at the beginning of the second book, Angus is not about to start telling any truths, because one truth always leads to another. Any "truths" that he does tell will be used to cover up secrets. The purpose is to prevent the death penalty.

Morn, it also so happens in the second book, has become a zone implant addict. So she does not want to lose control over her addiction.

These last two plot elements were not present in TRS. The supposedly courageous element involved in Angus's not telling the truth about how the supplies got on board his ship, thus freeing himself from incarceration, has mysteriously vanished.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: These last two plot elements were not present in TRS. The supposedly courageous element involved in Angus's not telling the truth about how the supplies got on board his ship, thus freeing himself from incarceration, has mysteriously vanished.

Well, Morn has "mysteriously vanished," too. She is no longer on the station. So Angus's withholding info has two different recipients, Morn vs himself. Like I said. You didn't address that point.

Originally, Morn is hiding its existence in order to protect Angus, not because she loves him or even likes him, but because they made a deal.

Yes, that's true. But she made this deal because she "needed to heal," she needed the Z.I. to heal herself. She was already becoming dependent upon it.

Sure, the story is becoming larger and elements which weren't explicit before are becoming explicit . . . but this is just what I'd want in a series of books. I'd want previous events shown in new light. It's not an inconsistency, it's another layer of the Real Story.

And all I'm saying is that SRD's 'peeling of this onion' requires a certain amount of invention, given the fact that there really wasn't much of substance to TRS. This can lead to the appearance of inconsistency between novels which you say doesn't exist. I would say that the "onion" didn't exist when TRS was originally written, and that it had to be invented in order to make the first novel blossom into five.

It's always a good idea to finish the book before assuming that there's an inconsistency. I just started to reread the first chronicles of thomas covenant after probably five years or more, having just finished fatal revenant. I know I was having some issues with inconsistencies in later books, but all of those were resolved as I read further into the book.

ashke09 wrote:It's always a good idea to finish the book before assuming that there's an inconsistency. I just started to reread the first chronicles of thomas covenant after probably five years or more, having just finished fatal revenant. I know I was having some issues with inconsistencies in later books, but all of those were resolved as I read further into the book.

I don't know what you mean when you say "it's always a good idea to finish the book." I have five of them. Is there a compendium available? Because at the time I started this thread I would have finished TRS.

What I see between TRS and the later books is a bit of patchwork used to create a needed sense of continuity. For example, in TRS there was nothing about the UMPC allowing Morn to go with Nick. Morn went of her own free-will - but that this happened only because the UMCP allowed it to happen was not "revealed" until later books. And as a result you have Morn trying to explain to Cleatus Fane and the GCES that there is no contradiction with that part of the story. I would agree that SRD patched such issues together neatly enough to be hardly noticeable in order to make the series as seamless as possible.