Kevin's Watch

The question of what "fist and faith" means is not that obvious considering the fact that "faith" has no less than four definitions:

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faith
# S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# S: (n) faith, trust (complete confidence in a person or plan etc) "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
# S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
# S: (n) faith (loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person) "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

What's striking to me however (and I didn't mention this in my question because I know that SRD loathes Ayn Rand) is the connection Ayn Rand made between violence ("fist") and religion or mysticism ("faith"). So it would seem only natural to her that fist and faith should go together like bread and butter. Whereas, on the other hand, if the Bloodguard believed in reason over faith then they would rarely or perhaps never resort to the fist.

But his GI answer takes religion completely out of the picture. "Faith" is "confidence in oneself." This is not obvious even from the text because it was never explained in the text. SRD apparently never thought it needed explaining, the Bloodguard set an example which "explains" itself to those who never think to question it.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:The question of what "fist and faith" means is not that obvious considering the fact that "faith" has no less than four definitions:

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faith
# S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# S: (n) faith, trust (complete confidence in a person or plan etc) "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
# S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
# S: (n) faith (loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person) "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

What's striking to me however (and I didn't mention this in my question because I know that SRD loathes Ayn Rand) is the connection Ayn Rand made between violence ("fist") and religion or mysticism ("faith"). So it would seem only natural to her that fist and faith should go together like bread and butter. Whereas, on the other hand, if the Bloodguard believed in reason over faith then they would rarely or perhaps never resort to the fist.

But his GI answer takes religion completely out of the picture. "Faith" is "confidence in oneself." This is not obvious even from the text because it was never explained in the text. SRD apparently never thought it needed explaining, the Bloodguard set an example which "explains" itself to those who never think to question it.

WOTWE -- He's the Author. He gets to decide what is meant by Fist and Faith in his books. He wrote them, he gave them context, he created it. And if there are things in it that arent internally consistant, its because its a work made by a human.

Another point is that the Land is another world; Haruchai arent human, are a different, although similar race -- the terms, especially those like faith can mean different things to them than humans.

faith to me doesn't have to mean faith in oneself -- if that were true, faith in God would be a paradox, unless you beleive you are God; the word faith (to me) describes a context in which one beleives something intangible, or without direct evidence of truth, or perhaps even with evidence to the contrary. We have faith we can overcome obstacles so we keep going despite setbacks, we have faith in our religion, or faith in someone else's motive, abilities, actions, etc.

I think I originally really wanted to know what "Fist and Faith" meant to the poster here with the same name. Then I began to wonder exactly what SRD meant by it, since "faith" has at least four common definitions, and I'm betting the OED has more than four.

I'm not arguing with his answer, I just wondered what that phrase meant to him.

.....

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think I originally really wanted to know what "Fist and Faith" meant to the poster here with the same name. Then I began to wonder exactly what SRD meant by it, since "faith" has at least four common definitions, and I'm betting the OED has more than four.

I'm not arguing with his answer, I just wondered what that phrase meant to him.

Fisty is a BIG fan of the haruchai.

SRD's answer to your question does make perfect sense to me; it also seems to be consistant to what the Haruchai stand for...

If I remember correctly, that's almost exactly what Fist and Faith (the KW member) said when you asked him, right?

I always took the term to mean "remaining true." As in "faithful." They could have easily said, "Fist and Vow," and meant nearly the same thing.

The last definition seems to fit this perfectly: faith (loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person) "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

That describes the Haruchai's inhuman commitment to their Vow.

iQuestor wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think I originally really wanted to know what "Fist and Faith" meant to the poster here with the same name. Then I began to wonder exactly what SRD meant by it, since "faith" has at least four common definitions, and I'm betting the OED has more than four.

I'm not arguing with his answer, I just wondered what that phrase meant to him.

Fisty is a BIG fan of the haruchai.

I figured he was, so I asked the right person at that time, didn't I?

iQuestor wrote:SRD's answer to your question does make perfect sense to me; it also seems to be consistant to what the Haruchai stand for...

Well, uh, like you said, SRD is the author, after all.

I can't recall, where in the books did this phrase appear? (Sorry F&F, I haven't realized your name was more than a description)

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

iQuestor wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think I originally really wanted to know what "Fist and Faith" meant to the poster here with the same name. Then I began to wonder exactly what SRD meant by it, since "faith" has at least four common definitions, and I'm betting the OED has more than four.

I'm not arguing with his answer, I just wondered what that phrase meant to him.

Fisty is a BIG fan of the haruchai.

I figured he was, so I asked the right person at that time, didn't I?

iQuestor wrote:SRD's answer to your question does make perfect sense to me; it also seems to be consistant to what the Haruchai stand for...

Well, uh, like you said, SRD is the author, after all.

I took your original post as you not agreeing with SRD on his answer, or That you didnt think it was consistant. I was just offering my opinion that it did make sense to me. No need to be rude.

The term Fist And Faith appears in TIW, at the end of the chapter Korik's mission . In the paperback version, page 104, bottom of the page. The bloodguard have called the rahyhyn, and Elena has lit her staff and shouted "Hail" to send off the mission:

The Lords answered, wielding their own power and returnning the vibrant cry, "Hail!" and the bloodguard shouted together as one, "Fist and Faith! Hail High Lord!"

iQuestor wrote: The term Fist And Faith appears in TIW, at the end of the chapter Korik's mission . In the paperback version, page 104, bottom of the page. The bloodguard have called the rahyhyn, and Elena has lit her staff and shouted "Hail" to send off the mission:

The Lords answered, wielding their own power and returnning the vibrant cry, "Hail!" and the bloodguard shouted together as one, "Fist and Faith! Hail High Lord!"

Ah. Interesting. So did the mission fail because they were too self confident or because they weren't enough?

SBS wrote:

Ah. Interesting. So did the mission fail because they were too self confident or because they weren't enough?

My theory is it failed before they left Revelstone, failed as soon as First Mark Morin conceived the mission. Foul knew what he was doing , knew they'd send a mission, knew who they'd send, and what they would find and what choice they would have to make. I outlined this theory in parts 1 and 2 of It cannot now be set aside, nor passed on, linked below on my sig. There were several discussions about this in the below Part 1 of the actual story between Malik23, Wayfriend and myself that detail the theory of the inevitibility of the mission's failure. Being the bloodguard, they had no choice once they reached Coercri and found the Giant Raver. I Haven't finished Part 3.

Basically, the timeline was set for the mission to leave to coincide with the near completion of the genocide of the Seareach Giants by the Giant Raver. The timing was set by Foul by allowing Dukkha Waynhim to go free from his torture and corruption and into the questioning of the Lords. The summoning of Covenant also was to coincide at exactly this time, as disscussed by Hile and Covenant. The tale of the Giant Raver leading the army and the hints at the Illearth stone being used told by Manethrall Rue was the final straw to compel the seareach mission to leave. All neatly planned by Foul to have the mission witness the final desecration of Seareach and its Giants, completing the despair of the mission who would most certainly contain Bloodguard.

Once the mission caught up with the Giant Raver, one of two outcomes could follow; If the Raver destroyed the bloodguard, then he would have succeeding in causing the bayamo to completely destroy seareach, completing his goals to utter success; if the misison was able to defeat the Giant Raver, they then had a fragment of the Illearth Stone, which corrupts.

The bloodguard are now faced with seeming options, but IMHO only one would be acceptable by the standards of the Haruchai -- They could leave it alone, as Hyrim asked as he died, or they could safeguard it and take it to Revelstone, or they could do something else. However, they could not set it aside because it would be found by a (presumably) weaker and less disciplined being than a bloodguard, and therefore a danger to the Land. Not an option. It could not be passed on to another, because the Haruchai wouldn't trust the fate of the Land, which was entrusted to them through their service to the Lords, to another. Not an option accoriding to their vow.

They couldnt take it to Revelstone either. Haruchai needed aliantha to sustain them. This is mentioned in Gildefire. They also rode the Ranyhyn, pure Earthpower. Aliantha was a kind of truth test, because it rejected those who were corrupt. Foul's minions like the urviles could not use it. Ranyhyn, being pure Earthpower would not allow it to be carried by them, and no haruchai would ask them to bear it for them. They had too much respect for the Ranyhyn, and considered themselves sufficient to carry out their Vow without aid from others. SO the Haruchai having the fragment would be denied both the uses of Aliantha, and the mounts of the Ranyhyn. Therefore Korik could not have taken the fragment back to Revelstone with any swiftness at all. Being in that proximity ot the stone for so long would lead to the inevitibility of corruption, or at least failure -- they cant eat aliantha, and cant ride, so Korik knew they'd fail at that. They'd starve, run into Foul's army and be defeated, or be corrupt when they gained Revelstone and (horror of horrors!) taint the fidelity of their service.

Since they couldn't leave it, couldn't give it to anyone else, and couldn't make it to Revelstone, Therefore, their only choice was for them to keep the fragment and do something else in service to the Land and the Lords - strike against the foes of that which they served. And the closest, most important one was 60 leagues away, in Foul's Creche. They decided their only option in accordance with their Vow was to take the fragment and confront Foul at Foul's Creche, which was up the coast.

This was very attractive to them because Kevin denied them that chance when he sent them into the Mountains before the ROD. They had something to prove, and could make the first direct assault on Corruption by their kind. If they failed, they had at least spared the Land the danger of having a fragment unaccounted for. They didnt consider Foul would be able to corrupt them and keep them alive to do harm. They werent wise to the ways of Lore and didnt trust it, and (IMHO) felt it didnt apply to them. They probably felt they could keep it together enough to confront Foul.

This played right into Fouls hands, because his MO was to defeat those using that which gives them hope. The Fealty of Giants and the Fidelity of the Bloodguards service were two foundations on which the hope of the Land was built. The Oath of Peace was the third, which of course was later broken by Mhoram.

Foul knew that, whatever the outcome of the mission, he would have broken the back of the Land's hope -- he had taken the triplets borne by Wavenhair which were the great hope of the Giants as the prophecy they'd find the way home and turned it against them. By corrupting the bloodguard, he knew Mhoram would forsee it and cause despair to his armies and to the Lords.

So to answer your question, it seems as though they failed because of the extremity of their service, the fact that they were so predictable in their actions and motives that Foul was able to plan effectively how to use that which they held most valuable -- the fidelity to the Vow -- to his advantage. He used it to break the Vow, like he used the Triplets to break the Fidelity and the hearts of Giants so effectively they gave up and died in their homes.

iQuestor,

I have not taken SRD to task for what he believes "fist and faith" means. He is the author, as you said. I take him to task for assuming that everybody else will automatically know what it means, thus the ??????? which begins his response.

Another example of this is his assumption that everybody will know that the true names of the Ravers (turiya, etc.) are based on the superior view they hold of themselves. There are two problems with his assumption. First: their names are foreign and obscure to most people; second, even after translating their names into your native language, the fact that the Ravers' intention with these names is to be pompous is completely obscure. And there is nothing in the text to suggest or even to support SRD's assertion about the origin of Raver names, so we have to take him on his word.

SRD thinks his readers will automatically follow along with his line of thinking, and that's simply not the case.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:iQuestor,

I have not taken SRD to task for what he believes "fist and faith" means. He is the author, as you said. I take him to task for assuming that everybody else will automatically know what it means, thus the ??????? which begins his response.

WOTWE -- I just don't get your response or position at all. You take SRD to task for assuming that everyone will know what Fist and Faith means. Yet when I say, I do get exactly what he meant, then you respond with what I took as a very smart alecky comment:

Well, uh, like you said, SRD is the author, after all.

Fisty knew what it meant. Malik knew what it meant. I knew what it meant. Take a poll: if you ask most serious posters on here who have read the book what Fist And Faith means I'll wager the majority will be along the lines of SRD's explanation. Of course, some people aren't going to understand, and that's OK. Not everyone will. But to most serious readers of the Chrons, that point seems intuitive, right and crystal clear.

As far as your point about the Raver Names, where does SRD say or imply he expects people to know what their names mean? Writers use obscure references all the time, it's part of the art and craft of writing. Using an obscure reference doesn't necessarily imply the Author just expects anything. Most serious books are written on many levels for different styles of readers. Many people dont know Gullivers Travels was political Satire until they read the cliff notes, or Primary Colors was a roman a clef about the Clinton Campaign. As far as the Raver Names, I had to look them up, personally. I just figured they stood for something in Indian mythology or the like.

Speaking of iQuestor's story, I highly recommend it. Fanfiction isn't usually my thing, but this is a well written story that almost seems to fit right into the canon of SRD's work (I must say "almost" out of respect for the source, and just in case Donaldson happens to read this and think, "WTF?").

I have to agree with both iQuest and WOTWE. I think the meaning of F&F was given in the actions of the characters themselves, whereas it's not immediately obvious that the Ravers think of themselves as "enlightened." Even after SRD pointed that out, it still doesn't seem obvious.

I think Donaldson does assume things are obvious when they aren't. For instance, look at his exchange with me concerning why Linden thought she needed the Staff in Runes. He thought it was obvious. I thought he completely left her reasoning out of the text.

iQuestor wrote: Take a poll: if you ask most serious posters on here who have read the book what Fist And Faith means I'll wager the majority will be along the lines of SRD's explanation. Of course, some people aren't going to understand, and that's OK. Not everyone will. But to most serious readers of the Chrons, that point seems intuitive, right and crystal clear.

Even if you find enough serious (and unbiased) readers for your poll I still won't believe you. Because there is a difference between understanding something intuitively vs. conceptually. How are you going to find out if people understand it intuitively, that is, without using words and concepts? How is this even possible? Through ESP? You have to use concepts and hope that they correspond to the intuitive meanings, and you can never know for sure because intuitions aren't concepts. And it is impossible to take an objective poll regarding the content of people's subjective intuitions, because the results will be as subjective as the intuitions.

iQuestor wrote: As far as your point about the Raver Names, where does SRD say or imply he expects people to know what their names mean? Writers use obscure references all the time, it's part of the art and craft of writing. Using an obscure reference doesn't necessarily imply the Author just expects anything. Most serious books are written on many levels for different styles of readers. Many people dont know Gullivers Travels was political Satire until they read the cliff notes, or Primary Colors was a roman a clef about the Clinton Campaign. As far as the Raver Names, I had to look them up, personally. I just figured they stood for something in Indian mythology or the like.

He didn't imply it, he made the observation about understanding Raver names somewhere in the SI. He made a similar reply in the GI on 4/14/04, although he omitted the details of the names' origin. But at least this quote tells you that their names reflect their characters, in that Ravers think quite highly of their own enlightened superiority. This reminds me of the end of TPTP where LF casts himself as TC's intellectual superior, claiming he had attained supreme wisdom when TC's world was in its infancy. The Raver's share in his claim to superiority, and their names were designed to reflect this.

I would be interested in re-reading the SI quote when I can find the time to search for it. Unfortunately, the SI has no search feature...

Malik23 wrote: I have to agree with both iQuest and WOTWE. I think the meaning of F&F was given in the actions of the characters themselves, whereas it's not immediately obvious that the Ravers think of themselves as "enlightened." Even after SRD pointed that out, it still doesn't seem obvious.

I'll try again:

Ayn Rand, an atheist like yourself, might have interpreted "faith" in the religious sense because for her religion and violence inevitably go together (and because she constantly misconstrued everything she regarded as "e-villl"). There is no objectivity in any of this, everything is filtered through our presuppositions.

How can such an obvious point be so lost on people? Do I, like SRD, automatically assume people will understand it? Well, in my case, I think I have spelled it out clearly enough by now. Am I right?

If people say they already "understand" SRD's meaning of "fist and faith" intuitively, that's because they never thought about it. But what would be the result if I asked one of these intuitionists what SRD meant by the term "faith"?

You will find that the intuitionists have no knowledge to fall back on. They will only manage to mumble and stutter out an approximate string of concepts vaguely corresponding to their intuitions.

Malik23 wrote:I think Donaldson does assume things are obvious when they aren't. For instance, look at his exchange with me concerning why Linden thought she needed the Staff in Runes. He thought it was obvious. I thought he completely left her reasoning out of the text.

So you recall reading the interview in which SRD stated he thought the Ravers' names spoke for themselves?

Malik23 wrote:
I think Donaldson does assume things are obvious when they aren't. For instance, look at his exchange with me concerning why Linden thought she needed the Staff in Runes. He thought it was obvious. I thought he completely left her reasoning out of the text.

SRD seems to agree with you there:

SRD wrote:Of course, it’s possible--even likely--that the author failed to explain any of this clearly in “The Runes of the Earth.” <sigh> “Leaving out the obvious” is a problem which never ceases to bedevil me. And, I assume, other people in my position.

(12/18/2006)