Is the Chronicles Religious?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

SI stands for "Structured Interviews." I ran across this SRD quote tonight while reading SRD's first interview in the SI dated Jan. 1979 -

Is Chance as we know it simply a mask worn by God? or is God as He/She/It is usually understood merely a mask worn by Chance? I'd rather not try to unravel such dilemmas. My own views are self-contradictory to the point of absurdity; and I've already presented them about as well as I can in COVENANT.

But I would like to observe that the essential issues (and answers) in this trilogy are religious.

[ninjaboy]

Despite my own faith.. Or, indeed, because of it, I find it hard to view it as 'religeous'.

Yes it's a story about good v. evil, about sacrifice for a greater cause, about.. redemption. Just because a story has these items doesn't make it religeous.

For it to be religeous it would need a deity.. It MAY have one in the Creator / Jeremiah (and for some strange reason I want to add the Lawnmower Man into that too)

But the Power in the Land seems to come from the land itself, everyone (in the forst Chrons) lived in an almost taoistic balance with nature.. But then everone really does too much to be taoists too..

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Isn't the tao part of religion too? And didn't the Creator create everything natural to the Land's universe, including the power in the Land?

Despite these difficulties with your post, I'm glad to see someone else here, besides me, disagreeing with SRD's own take on his own books. For example, I have disagreed with his Law of Promises and his Law of Consequences. But if you were to mention redemption and sacrifice, that is certainly not evidence against the Chrons being religious. They are indeed consistent with SRD's own statements regarding what he was thinking at the time he conjured up the idea for his books.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

From the SI:

My characters don't believe in God and I call myself religious. Not many people spend as much time contradicting themselves as I do.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

From the SI:

My characters don't believe in God and I call myself religious. Not many people spend as much time contradicting themselves as I do.

They do believe in a god, the Creator is their god...right? Plus, in LFB, the Creator actually admits that he IS the Earthpower as he says that he did what eventually SRD wrote what the Earthpower did for Berek...danlo quoted the GI in another thread that said/showed as much...

[thewormoftheworld'send]

When I think of "characters" who don't believe in God (atheists) I think of Covenant and Troy. But the inhabitants of the Land don't believe in God because they've never heard of Christianity.

God is to be distinguished from the Creator of the Land's universe because the latter is not the Christian God.

I have no idea where in LFB the Creator says he is Earthpower. One legend of the Earth's creation states that Earthpower emanates from stars which were devoured by the Worm before it fell into slumber.

[Orlion]

Often times, it seems that redemption is the end to which religion (allegedly) is the means. Thinking about it this way, one could say that the Chronicles are religious because redemption is one of the (if not THE, pronounced "thee") main themes of the books.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Often times, it seems that redemption is the end to which religion (allegedly) is the means. Thinking about it this way, one could say that the Chronicles are religious because redemption is one of the (if not THE, pronounced "thee") main themes of the books.

Agreed. TC's soul is redeemed, whether he likes it or not. Of course he doesn't see it in terms of his soul, Unbelief and leprosy are the things he believes in.

[Orlion]

Yeah, Donaldson definitely applies the theme of redemption beyond the orthodox religious view.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

I think all fantasy has religious undertones at some level...

Fantasy has always seemed to me to be allegorical to what we feel as human beings, and within us...?...seems to be this desire for redemption...

[thewormoftheworld'send]

If redemption is a universal human desire, then religion is only one example of how it is expressed. So it is possible even for atheists to want it and seek it, even if unconsciously.

[Vraith]

If redemption is a universal human desire, then religion is only one example of how it is expressed. So it is possible even for atheists to want it and seek it, even if unconsciously.

SRD also deals with other concerns commonly associated with religion, as well. I think it's pretty important to note that there is a non-god, non-specific, meaning for religion/religious; that speaks only of the persons way of living, not of any god, diety, higher power. In this sense, at least, the work is utterly religious.
Someone mentioned Tao, I think that this, as well as Buddhism, originally had little to do with gods, they were only religious in the sense above.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

If redemption is a universal human desire, then religion is only one example of how it is expressed. So it is possible even for atheists to want it and seek it, even if unconsciously.

SRD also deals with other concerns commonly associated with religion, as well. I think it's pretty important to note that there is a non-god, non-specific, meaning for religion/religious; that speaks only of the persons way of living, not of any god, diety, higher power. In this sense, at least, the work is utterly religious.
Someone mentioned Tao, I think that this, as well as Buddhism, originally had little to do with gods, they were only religious in the sense above.

I'm pretty sure, without looking it up, that Buddhism is explicitly atheist.
But when SRD says he is religious, does that mean he is a Buddhist? Does it mean he is extreme in his approach to living? Does it mean he is a member of a religious faith? Hardly.

Unfortunately, SRD's love of personal privacy makes these questions more difficult. But the answer is this: SRD is not religious in any traditional sense (he's not a church-goer, he doesn't pray on the edge of his bed every night, he doesn't read the Bible, etc.). But because of his strictly religious upbringing, his ideas and his approach to writing and living are deeply informed by his religious upbringing. On the other hand, the characters he has written about have had no religious upbringing whatsoever, they wouldn't know redemption if it died on their front lawns. All TC knows at the end of PTPT is that he survived.

[ninjaboy]

Neither Taoism or Buddhism are Religions. And not just because they have no deities to worship. They are ways of living your life, of looking at the world, of being connected with all that is around you (taoism) or seperated, where a state of nothingness approaches enlightenment (buddhism). They deal soley from an understanding of one's experience, with no manuals, no dogmas, no rules, and no defining things as 'good' or 'evil'.

I think I don't need to go further. You can be spiritual without being religious.

Anyway, in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.. Actually 'Covenant' has a pretty significant biblical meaning, doesn't it?.. But where was I?

There's plenty of religious symbolism in the story of how the Creator created the world and cast down the Render into the world of the Land.. The lingering presence of an immortal 'evil' personified. Plenty of examples of characters dying to save others (even amongst the (Ranhyn) as well as the more traditional Martyrs (Hamako, to name but one). Or. Bugger me. I almost forgot resurrection.

If you consider being 'Religeous' as a belief in a God, then those Giants who believe the creation story which was told to Covenant aboard Starfare's Gem could be labeled as religious. Religions are founded on belief systems (hence excluding Taoists and Zen adepts) and I suppose the Jheherrin's belief in the prophecy of the 'Pure One' could also label them as religious.

I suppose my point is while many of the main characters of the Chrons aren't religious, some whom we have met could definately fall under that category. Even the Elohim, in their Belief that the rousing of the Worm will bring about the End of the World could be religious, perhaps. Perhaps not. But still, there are many inhabitants of the world of the Land which we have not met...

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Thanks Ninjaboy, you saved me from having the last word in a thread again - for the moment.

I tried to keep to the context of the SRD statement from the SI, because the real puzzle is in there especially regarding religion.

The Giants don't believe in a God with a capital "G". The Creator is simply a character in a myth. The various peoples of that Earth have variants on Creator myths. And when you capitalize God it can easily be confused with the Christian God. That's why I distinguish "Creator" from "God," although Christians sometimes refer to God as the Creator. But there needs to be consistency of terminology in order to avoid confusion, so I have always written that in the "real" world there is God and the Land has a Creator.

I agree that there is gobs and gobs of Christian symbolism in the Chrons. At first TC in a state of innate innocence entered a veritable Garden of Eden - and then almost immediately fell from grace. From then on he practiced the Covenant of Law as in the OT until he managed to attain the Covenant of Grace through his self-sacrifice in TPTP.

These examples go on and on.

I disagree that Taoism and Buddhism aren't religions, as I don't believe that religions require God-worship, or god-worship. And they do have strict rules (codes of behavior), dogmas, and pre-defined ideas of good and evil. But the Tao is a mystical form of religion, while Buddhism is a secular form. Just because they lack certain trappings that go along with and define Christianity (besides God-worship) that doesn't negate their status as religions.

What you say about religious symbolism in the Land also goes along with the Tao and not just Christianity. The Creator cast down a-Jeroth and thus planted the seeds of his own Creation's destruction. But this was as inevitable and fated as yin/yang. There is even a hint in the text that the evil was part of the Creator from the beginning. But casting it down to the Earth was not the solution to the yin/yang cycle. That only keeps the struggle between good and evil, dark and light, active, while only postponing the inevitable conflict.

It is said in the GI that TC used physical methods in the first Chrons, self-sacrifice in the second, and finally he will learn acceptance. You can see in this a cycling from yang to yin, and finally transcendence over the eternal cycle of good and evil.

[Vraith]

Thanks Ninja and Worm, and I rest my case.

[Fist and Faith]

Taoism was very much not a religion when it began. But the way things were sometimes worded, metaphorically, made some people think there was a way to attain earthly immortality. So they came up with rituals, practices, gods, etc. Hence, Religious Taoism.

Here's my explanation of the original Taoism, in case you're interested in some long reading.
www.geocities.com/laochuangtsu/

[wayfriend]

I think that this question fails to state, first, what a "religious" story is. Without that, you cannot know the answer.

I think that the Chronicles are, without doubt, spiritual. Themes of creation and redemption and the nature of evil are certainly spiritual questions.

A spiritual story will address the same questions that a religious story would. However, by my definition, a religious story is one where the views or practices of a particular religion are espoused (or denigrated).

By that definition, the Chronicles aren't religious. Any passing similarity to a religion are not relevant to the story. Contrast with, for example, Narnia, which is well known for being a clearly religious story.

So, I call the Chronicles spiritual, but not religious. Seem fair?

I'll add this quote from the GI which seems to align with my point (if you accept that theological=spiritual for the purposes of this discussion):

phil: Dear Steve: To be more succinct than I have previously, institutional religion and even theology of any sort play little or no role in any of your fictional worlds, or even in any or your major characters. I gather such absence is not coincidental. Given your personal background, I suspect there's much you could say/write on such matters. Why have you chosen to speak to them only by your silence? As always, peace and prosperity.

• You're right, of course: I make virtually no use of "institutional religion" in my stories (with the obvious exceptions of "Penance" and the "tent revival" in TPTP). "Theology" is a different matter: if you held a gun to my head, I could probably argue that my work is full of theology in one form or another. Haven't I already quoted--or misquoted--S. P. Somtow: "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry"? Still, your point is a valid one. "Religion" plays no role at all in the lives of the vast majority of my characters.
  
  I've often asked myself about that, and I've concluded that the subject is simply too personal: it elicits very strong emotions in me, emotions which would overwhelm any story in which I attempted to include them. Throughout this interview, I've tried to explain in various ways that--for me--storytelling requires a certain "impersonality." Storytelling can't be about *me* (except to the extent that it articulates my convictions about storytelling). It can't be about my beliefs or emotions on any subject: it can only be about the story. (Which probably explains my irrational insistence that the ideas for stories come from somewhere "outside" me: a necessary fiction which allows me to treat the story as if its existence is independent of my self; my ego, my emotions, my needs.)
  
  You could say that I exclude "religion" from my work because otherwise my personal emotions would distort and ultimately destroy the story. Or you could say that my personal emotions on the subject are so intense that they swamp my imagination, preventing me from even conceiving--never mind executing--any story.
  
  (03/08/2006)

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, that's a good quote. Donaldson doesn't make this easy for us, because, as WotWE quoted, he seems to contradict himself. And, I think he was (seemingly) contradicting himself in that very quote. Obviously, his characters *do* believe in a Creator and a Second Coming of a Savior. And I seriously doubt that he means he is "religious" in the normal sense of the word.

I think the only way we can wrap our minds around this is to see how Donaldson attempts to wrap his mind around his own contradictions--and it is crucial that we note his usage of the language he uses to do this. As Wayfriend said.

Bear with me. This is going to be a long post.

But since so many people want to know, I'll say this. It is my opinion that the question of whether or not a Creator (let's call her God) exists itself does not matter. If God does exist, her existence will not be affected by my belief--or lack of belief--in her. If God does not exist, no amount of belief on my part will call her into existence. Either way, asking the question doesn't make any difference. But I'll go further. I think that asking the question *shouldn't* make any difference.

Here's what I believe *is* important. (Take it or leave it: it's just an opinion.) 1) Every human being is responsible for the meaning of his/her own life. God's existence, or lack thereof, doesn't change that. And in fact the very notion of God is often a destructive concept, since so many people use their belief in God as a means to avoid accepting responsibility for their own lives. Hence it is my *opinion* of the man from Nazareth that his story enriches some people's lives and degrades others, depending on whether or not those people use his story as an excuse to avoid their responsibility for their own lives. 2) We live in what I like to call a "possible" world; a world in which far more things are possible than we will ever be able to know, recognize, or name. "God" is certainly a convenient term of reference for many of those possibilities. So is "soul." So is "ghost." So is "Grace." But the terms of reference only exist for *our* convenience: they have no bearing on what actually is or is not possible.

And now I suppose I'm in trouble. <sigh> I've probably alienated every third person who reads this site. Certainly my poor mother is turning over in her grave. (My father was more inclined to the idea that religion is something you *do* rather than something you *believe*: he might conceivably have understood what I'm saying.) But, gol durn it, you DID ask.

That quote is an important place to start. If Donaldson is serious about this "I'm a religious person" stuff, then this is a strange religion, indeed. He thinks that words like "god" and "soul" are metaphors for possibilities we don't understand. So he is explicitly distancing himself from literal interpretations of those words. And then he espouses a clear-cut version of existential "ethics," that of authenticity. Being true to oneself. Being responsible for oneself. This is a humanization or secularization of religion. He is setting the groundwork for reclaiming words like "religious" to mean something other than they have in the past. It's not a belief system, but rather a mode of being/acting.

I realize that many major religions are predicated on the idea that God (or some other external force) is going to fix things for us. All we have to do is have faith. But I can't see how that makes sense. If we aren't responsible for the content of our own lives, why do we bother to live at all?

On the other hand, *believing* that someone else is going to fix things for us can give rise to any number of storytelling possibilities.

(07/01/2005)

Again, the distinction between believing/doing. Between a religion with a god-figure, and turning oneself into the only "god" one needs. This is a story of SELF-redemption. It isn't about grace. This is the replacement of traditional religious concepts with a secular, existential interpretation.

However, the transition from believing that someone else will fix things, to realizing your own responsibility to fix things, is an important story to tell. So in as much as his books are "religious," they include the previous connotation long enough to show how it is wrong. And then show a new take.

Is it your contention that the word ["transubstantiation"] can only be used in reference to the Christian sacrament of communion? In that case, yes, I've mis-used the word. But I like to think that words can be used as metaphors, or can be extended (in some form) beyond their most literal denotations. That, it seems to me, is part of the glory of language. Why can't the general concept of "incarnating the sacred in the mundane" be applied in contexts that have nothing to do with churches, priests, or even coherent religions?

(03/01/2006)

Again, an example of how he thinks he is reclaiming religious terminology to expand it into a more general, secular usage.

You're right, of course: I make virtually no use of "institutional religion" in my stories (with the obvious exceptions of "Penance" and the "tent revival" in TPTP). "Theology" is a different matter: if you held a gun to my head, I could probably argue that my work is full of theology in one form or another. Haven't I already quoted--or misquoted--S. P. Somtow: "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry"? Still, your point is a valid one. "Religion" plays no role at all in the lives of the vast majority of my characters.

I've often asked myself about that, and I've concluded that the subject is simply too personal: it elicits very strong emotions in me, emotions which would overwhelm any story in which I attempted to include them. Throughout this interview, I've tried to explain in various ways that--for me--storytelling requires a certain "impersonality." Storytelling can't be about *me* (except to the extent that it articulates my convictions about storytelling). It can't be about my beliefs or emotions on any subject: it can only be about the story. (Which probably explains my irrational insistence that the ideas for stories come from somewhere "outside" me: a necessary fiction which allows me to treat the story as if its existence is independent of my self; my ego, my emotions, my needs.)

You could say that I exclude "religion" from my work because otherwise my personal emotions would distort and ultimately destroy the story. Or you could say that my personal emotions on the subject are so intense that they swamp my imagination, preventing me from even conceiving--never mind executing--any story.

(03/08/2006)

He makes a distinction between theology--which is a study of religion, rational inquiry into religious questions--and religion, which is the practice of , adherence to, or belief in religion. One could say that Richard Dawkins or Nietzsche practiced theology. They certainly had a lot to say about religion in the course of their examination of it. But no one would ever accuse their works of being "religious."

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Clave was "based" on "the christian church"--or any particular church or religion. But there's no question that the Clave (intentionally) reflects my personal experience with specific churches, specific brands of fundamentalism. And the distortions of the Rede mimic the scriptural distortions practiced by religious fanatics of every description. Christianity and Islam appear to be uniquely susceptible to such distortions; but I suspect that they occur in every religion.

Just my opinion, of course.

(07/18/2006)

That's a nice insight into exactly what he's trying to distinguish himself from.

I did not intend to present Covenant "as [a] character with deep religious beliefs or values": I intended to present him as a character whose struggles are *about* "deep religious beliefs and values". (I hope the distinction I'm trying to make is clear.) And in keeping with my argument that fantasy is internal drama acted out as if it were external drama, everything else is addressed, well, in disguise. You mentioned healing the leper and Covenant's idiosycratic profanity: details like that are pretty overt. But look at other details: the Land has cathedrals (Revelstone, Revelwood), scripture (Kevin's Lore), bishop-figures (the Lords), a seminary (the Loresraat), pastor-figures (the teachers in the Loresraat), prophets (the Unfettered), even lay preachers (Atiaran). (Just because they don't talk about "God" doesn't mean they ain't got religion. <grin>) However, I hasten to insist that none of this is intended to reflect Covenant's personal beliefs. Rather it is intended to shed light on the meaning of his personal struggle.

(07/30/2006)

This is perhaps the most important quote of all. TC struggles *about* religious issues. So does Neitzsche. So does Dawkins. So does every atheist. The fact that this is the context in which they struggle should not minimize the point that this is precisely that which they distinguish themselves against. Covenant doesn't become a Lord, an expert user of Earthpower, and a scholar of Kevin's Lore. He becomes the White Gold Wielder. He becomes the "god" of his own inner world. Apotheosis: Exaltation to divine rank or stature; deification. Why do you suppose Donaldson chose that word to describe the last section of WGW? Why do you suppose the Creator is no longer a character in the story? Covenant fills that role now.

I don't think there's much room for argument on this point. "The Land" is definitely an "entity/character" in the story. It's not an accident that the very *stones* possess sentience; or that the Old Lords made a virtual religion out of service to the Land.
(08/13/2008)

Note: a "virtual" religion. The Old Lords weren't the Clave. Their service isn't to be compared to today's fundamentalist religions. But even at that level, the Old Lords were still wrong. They were still waiting around for "Berek II" and limiting themselves with self-denying codes of ethics. So even their relatively benign example was used to illustrate a counterpoint to TC's journey.

In my view, *meaning* is created internally by each individual in each specific life: any attempt at *meaning* which relies on some kind of external superstructure (God, Satan, the Creator, the Worm, whatever) for its substance misses the point (I mean the point of my story).

Spoiler

That, among several other reasons, is why the Creator has effectively vanished from "The Last Chronicles": I'm trying to tighten my thematic focus and keep it where it belongs.

So when you ask me a question like, "Did the Creator actually create the Earth or just provide the circumstances for its creation?" my reflexive reaction is, WHA---? You've stepped so far outside the story I'm trying to tell that we are no longer speaking the same narrative language.

(10/22/2008)

That's pretty explicit. The point of his story is to present a character who finds a meaning to his life within himself . . . in direct, stark contrast to the alternative: finding meaning in an external "religious" source. Just because he includes that which is needed to set up this contrast doesn't mean that this contrasting element is what the story is about. It's about the exact opposite.

Now, to answer the original question here: Is the Chronicles Religious? I'd say no. Notice the wording of the original quote used to make this argument. He says the issues (and answers) which the Chronicles deals with are religious. That's not the same as saying the Chronicles themselves are religious. And I'd even take issue with him about the "answers" being religious, given the context of the above quotes. Certainly those answers have nothing to do with God, religion, churches, or any external source of meaning.

So, in my opinion, if you want to call that "religious," then either you miss the point, or you understand that Donaldson has completely reinterpreted and reclaimed the term.

[wayfriend]

That's a pretty exhaustive summary, Malik. Thanks!

I do think that he means "theological" or "spiritual" when he says "He says the issues (and answers) which the Chronicles deals with are religious." Everything makes sense with that interpretation.

And yes, many things in the story are religion-like. But they aren't Donaldson's religion. It is the religion of the characters, which is used as a platform for exploring theological/spiritual issues. So, the story isn't religious, despite their being religious elements - I can hold that in my head and see no contradiction. (Does anyone think Donaldson is trying to teach us to believe in Earthpower and the Creator? I don't think so.)

I did spoilerize some final chronicles bits in your post, sorry. (Watch the forum title at the top of the page.)