Kevin's Watch

SRD's selections of names for his characters always fascinated me. Things that have struck me are

1. The names in the 'real' world are extremely simple, Tom, Joan, Susie, Roger, etc. The names almost seem to add to the dullness of the 'real' world.

2. The names in the land seem to be, rightly so, of a more fantastic nature, Mhoram, Atiarin, Trell, Triock, Amatin, etc...........then all of a sudden there is Kevin, a name from the 'real' land. Of course there is Lena and Elena, which could really swing both ways.

Just think its interesting. Maybe it's discussed in the gradual interview, but I couldn't find it.

I know that Kevin's name has been debated a few times around here. I'm one who had no trouble accepting that name. It always surprises me how "Kevin" seems to drive some readers to distraction. To me, there is enough of an old world feel to the name "Kevin" that it fits just fine in the Land.

All SRD would have had to do, was to spell it a little differently, like Kehven or something like that; and this problem would have never come up.

Hell, he did that for Llaura...just added an extra 'L' and it looks perfectly Land-ish.

I know I never pronounced her name as LLLLLLLaura. Just plain old Laura.

BTW Berek, is fairly normal sounding too,

drew wrote:All SRD would have had to do, was to spell it a little differently, like Kehven or something like that; and this problem would have never come up.
,

Don't really see it as a problem. I just don't think SRD does anything by mistake. I think there was a reason he gave it such a 'real world' name, just don't know the reason

From the first time I read the Chronicles I've always thought Kevin represented the kid I once was - before I had to grow up and start school. Kevin can sometimes remind me of that time when Peter Pan, the Wizard of Oz, Winnie the Pooh, Aslan, were all very real - or at least in the imagination of a child.

I can still relate to Kevin in this way and so perhaps understand his despair and his desecration his having to give up the magical worlds, to stop playing with toys, and to learn how to be an adult and function in the 'real world'.

On a DVD about the recording of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Roger Waters said that much of the lyrics he wrote came from his belief that on a very basic level we don't really grow emotionaly beyond about five years old. Our views and our experiences may change and evolve, but we still have the same feelings we had all those many years ago.

So maybe Kevin is who Thomas Covenant once was, before he became a golden boy, before leprosy. Didn't Bannor let his mask slip when Kevin appeared in the chamber of the seventh ward, as if he saw a resemblance between Covenant and Kevin as one and the same! Kevin has to be Covenant's strongest link to tapping into his wild magic - that dangerous territory between belief and the destruction of something which is, after all, purely in the imagination.

But I don't really know why SRD chose the name Kevin.
Just some thoughts on the topic!

lorin wrote:

drew wrote:All SRD would have had to do, was to spell it a little differently, like Kehven or something like that; and this problem would have never come up.
,

Don't really see it as a problem. I just don't think SRD does anything by mistake. I think there was a reason he gave it such a 'real world' name, just don't know the reason

According to the GI, I'm pretty sure He says that there is no Real word connection to the name Kevin.

Although, he's been known to certainly stretch the truth on the GI !!

Kevin means hansome beloved in its meaning, perhaps the nut was

lorin wrote:Don't really see it as a problem. I just don't think SRD does anything by mistake. I think there was a reason he gave it such a 'real world' name, just don't know the reason

I agree. Could it be to do with Kevin's destructive capabilities making him more similar to a denizen of our world rather than his own.

Also, the topic makes me think of 'Hile Troy'. Clearly not a common name in our world, what can be drawn from this in terms of his appearence in the land.

Found SRD's discussion of the name Kevin in the GI. He states that he is amazed at people's issue with the name, that it had just sounded right. I still think it's interesting.

But I was unable to find anything regarding the use of extremely simplistic first names in the 'real' world, which to me is the more interesting aspect.

jackgiantkiller wrote:Kevin means hansome beloved in its meaning, perhaps the nut was

I'm assuming you think he is a nut because of the RoD. But I guess that instead of causing the RoD what if he had challenged Lord Foul to an egg and spoon race wherein the Land would not have been so devistated. I doubt very much that this would have made for a better story?

What do you reckon?
Yes? No? Bollocks?

What I find interesting about the names is how SRD uses them to encapsulate the character ie we have a 'doubting Thomas' , Sunder, as he has broken asunder his own family, as a 'sea-compass' Foamfollower guides Covenant to Lord Foul etc

And Covenant "runs Amok" in the Land ...

hue of bone wrote:What I find interesting about the names is how SRD uses them to encapsulate the character ie we have a 'doubting Thomas' , Sunder, as he has broken asunder his own family, as a 'sea-compass' Foamfollower guides Covenant to Lord Foul etc

Yeah, just recently I've been thinking about Triock's name in this way.
I keep thinking what if his name implies a mixture of, tick tock and trick
But what this might mean, I've no idea...yet!

Covenant also means connection/link/agreement or is that covernant? link to land? from the real world

lorin wrote: But I was unable to find anything regarding the use of extremely simplistic first names in the 'real' world, which to me is the more interesting aspect.

That's one thing I never thought of; but I think you are right. He gave the real worlders in the 1st chrons very simple names; possibly what you said ealier, to show how much more in depth the people are in the land

As a counterpoint to the OP, I'd like to offer the Chestertonian insight on the romance of seemingly "boring" names. Chesterton discussed the name of Smith as an example of romanticism that we have simply ceased to be able to see; in taking it for granted, we forget where it came from and what stands behind the name or what history it has, which is actually deeper than a name that simply "sounds cool".

I remember a long time ago a sensible sub-editor coming up to me
with a book in his hand, called "Mr. Smith," or "The Smith Family,"
or some such thing. He said, "Well, you won't get any of your damned
mysticism out of this," or words to that effect. I am happy to say
that I undeceived him; but the victory was too obvious and easy.
In most cases the name is unpoetical, although the fact is poetical.
In the case of Smith, the name is so poetical that it must be an arduous
and heroic matter for the man to live up to it. The name of Smith
is the name of the one trade that even kings respected, it could claim
half the glory of that arma virumque which all epics acclaimed.
The spirit of the smithy is so close to the spirit of song that it has
mixed in a million poems, and every blacksmith is a harmonious blacksmith.

There's more (and it's delightful!) here:
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch3.html

The names of "Tom" (The apostle Thomas, aka doubting Thomas, who, it is believed, ultimately went to India and was martyred there) and "Joan" (how could Joan of Arc be boring?) ring with poetry, be it in their etymology or in their previous bearers. From that standpoint, SRD's view of the names (which I agree with others here in describing his intent) is lacking.

There are tons of great stuff in GKC, and by no means all of it is specific to defense of the Christian faith.

I enjoyed reading this extract...www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch3.html

...although, the last paragraph was a bit of a bumper-car ride. I was left undecided wether or not I was a bore or was bored. Maybe I'll read through it again, or, check out some of Kipling's poetry instead...or maybe I could just flip a coin!

I don't recall having seen you in this corner of the forum before. Good post!

Krazy Kat wrote:I enjoyed reading this extract...www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch3.html

...although, the last paragraph was a bit of a bumper-car ride. I was left undecided wether or not I was a bore or was bored. Maybe I'll read through it again, or, check out some of Kipling's poetry instead...or maybe I could just flip a coin!

I don't recall having seen you in this corner of the forum before. Good post!

Thank you!

A general problem that I have found reading Chesterton is that, being a journalist, he frequently makes references to things well-known in his time and poorly-known in ours. For me, it has resulted in a huge learning experience, as I learn about things in the 19th and 20th centuries that I knew little or nothing about. IOW, the problem was not in Chesterton - it it was more in my lack of knowledge (which has forced me to open myself to further learning). Looking up Rhodes and the Boer War might clarify a few things for you, and be instructive to boot! It was for me!

Also, his tremendous knowledge in literature has really opened up the field for me (and I say that as one who holds an MA in lit.) and made me realize its true importance - something my college education never really did. If you realize that he had a near-photographic memory of most of what he ever read, it becomes easier to understand how he could know so much. A big eye-opener for me was going back to Kipling with Chesterton's comments in mind and discovering that he was right - the big thing I had always missed was the author's worldview - what the author really believes regarding truth - the one thing never really discussed in years of college study of literature - or if discussed, then only in passing, not as a primary thing that not only influences, but actually forms works. (Wait till you begin to apply that to reading SRD - "it'll really bake your noodle"! (nod to the Matrix)

On that last paragraph - I would say that its point is in the first sentences (about making the world smaller). And this:

The difficulty comes in when we seek to know the substance of either of them.

This cosmopolitanism makes us think we know things when we really don't. One example out of the myriad is how millions of Americans sitting in their armchairs could listen to soundbites and then vote to support a war in Iraq (or anywhere else). But I digress.

I apologize for any perceived hijacking - I'd be happy to discuss the parts of that chapter relative to names, though!

I do enjoy the names of the people of the Land and how the names all feel very internally consistent with the race that they belong. I've thought Kevin's name strange from time to time but since it was always followed by Landwaster I never gave it much thought til now. I think that Kevin's name may be simplistic and more like the "real" world names because of Kevin himself. Every character in the Land

Spoiler

, in the first chronicle at least,

is very grand. while people like Covenant and Kevin seem to pale in comparison. Though Kevin was strong and powerful he seemed the most apt to weakness of any of the Lord's old and new.

maybe Kevin's name, so starkly different than the other members of the land increases the sense of isolation we feel for him.

whereas Hile Troys name, increases the doubt of his existence in the
'real world' and adds to our /Covenants doubts.