Ignorance as motivation/plot device

Book 3 of the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant

Moderators: dlbpharmd, High Lord Tolkien

User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6637
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...

Post by Orlion »

I imagine that it will have a lot to do with the end game. Could be that intent is the most important factor here, and knowledge can lead to a change or stifling of intent.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
Frostheart Grueburn
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Gianthome

Post by Frostheart Grueburn »

[]
Last edited by Frostheart Grueburn on Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mighara Sovmadhi
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:50 am
Location: Near where Broken Social Scene is gonna play on October 15th, 2010

Post by Mighara Sovmadhi »

Zarathustra wrote:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm glad you've found a way to make peace with these issues. I wish I could.
:P Not sure I've made peace with it or if I'm just a sucker for the method... In LOST it was used even more often, more absurdly at times maybe even, but I put up with it there, too. I also was really into theorizing about the Wheel of Time series once upon a time...
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

Jumping in late, and can't begin to do just props to everyone's thoughts.

However, the idea of "ignorance as manipulation", or a rebuttal of that, seem to be overly concerned with outcomes.

We all live in a world where we are ignorant of many things. We all in hindsight have recognized warning signs, and wished they were more explicit. We have lots of people who seem to be sure they know what's going to happen to us, and happilly declare to us their prophesies for us. And, just to be fare, we're often manipulated by others, too.

That's life.

And, as I come to recognize more and more, Donaldson is trying to show us things that are about our world, and how we live in it. The fantasy has it's purpose, but the lessons are intended to be for RL.

So I think of it this way:

What's exciting about how someone handles things when they have all of the information? All they can be is right or wrong. Boring.

What's exciting is how someone handles things when they don't know. When they don't know, they aren't just guessing! They are falling back on their principals, and their values, and their ways-of-being-themselves. There's a tremendous amount of effort in picking what to do when you don't know. Soul searching and gut wrenching and hair pulling stuff. Rubber is hitting road, noses grindstones.

All of us have had the experience of making the right choice, even though it led to the wrong result. You say to yourself, or to another, Hey: you made the best decision you could have, based on what you knew.

Because, even when you don't know, there is still a best answer. And it's frequently having little relation to the one that having all the answers shows you.

Standing up for what you believe in. Being true to yourself. Fulfilling your responsibilities. Fighting without despair. -- All of these things are guides to the right answer in the face of ignorance.

It's the one that you won't regret having made. It's the one that preserves your soul. It's the one that gives you power. It's the one that helps you escape your prisons. It's the one that tames your demons.

So, to summarize, I think Donaldson is trying to tell us that how we decide what to do when we don't know what to do really does matter, and that there are good and bad choices to make in these situations, and he has reasons for why they are good and bad. Knowing this empowers you - you can be an effective passion.
.
User avatar
ussusimiel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:34 am
Location: Waterford (milking cows), and sometimes still Dublin, Ireland

Post by ussusimiel »

:goodpost:

u.
Tho' all the maps of blood and flesh
Are posted on the door,
There's no one who has told us yet
What Boogie Street is for.
User avatar
shadowbinding shoe
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:33 am

Post by shadowbinding shoe »

wayfriend wrote:Jumping in late, and can't begin to do just props to everyone's thoughts.

However, the idea of "ignorance as manipulation", or a rebuttal of that, seem to be overly concerned with outcomes.

We all live in a world where we are ignorant of many things. We all in hindsight have recognized warning signs, and wished they were more explicit. We have lots of people who seem to be sure they know what's going to happen to us, and happilly declare to us their prophesies for us. And, just to be fare, we're often manipulated by others, too.

That's life.

And, as I come to recognize more and more, Donaldson is trying to show us things that are about our world, and how we live in it. The fantasy has it's purpose, but the lessons are intended to be for RL.

So I think of it this way:

What's exciting about how someone handles things when they have all of the information? All they can be is right or wrong. Boring.

What's exciting is how someone handles things when they don't know. When they don't know, they aren't just guessing! They are falling back on their principals, and their values, and their ways-of-being-themselves. There's a tremendous amount of effort in picking what to do when you don't know. Soul searching and gut wrenching and hair pulling stuff. Rubber is hitting road, noses grindstones.

All of us have had the experience of making the right choice, even though it led to the wrong result. You say to yourself, or to another, Hey: you made the best decision you could have, based on what you knew.

Because, even when you don't know, there is still a best answer. And it's frequently having little relation to the one that having all the answers shows you.

Standing up for what you believe in. Being true to yourself. Fulfilling your responsibilities. Fighting without despair. -- All of these things are guides to the right answer in the face of ignorance.

It's the one that you won't regret having made. It's the one that preserves your soul. It's the one that gives you power. It's the one that helps you escape your prisons. It's the one that tames your demons.

So, to summarize, I think Donaldson is trying to tell us that how we decide what to do when we don't know what to do really does matter, and that there are good and bad choices to make in these situations, and he has reasons for why they are good and bad. Knowing this empowers you - you can be an effective passion.
It's one thing to act on imperfect knowledge. Even the mightiest in the Land can't be sure whether their plans will bear the fruits they expect. It's another to deliberately choose to be ignorant.

Since no one in our world is omniscient (though quite a few believe they are) this question seems tangential to our world.

I don't accept the idea that ignorance is a virtue. As a rule, moral questions become simpler the less you know, not more complex. Does the South Korean soldier has an easier time approving of war with their northern brethren than the oppossite? Do you have an easier time firing a lazy worker you know has kids and a drinking problem? Even with perfect knowledge interpretation varies.

To take an example from another story (don't remember the name of the movie), the husband of the protagonist goes out one day and never returns. She believes he abandoned her and her kids to be with another woman. She hates him with all her guts and instills that hatred in her children as well. She molds their whole lives around this. One day, years later, they find his body in a ditch/well nearby. What moral does this sotry have? She acted according to her gut feeling and blackened his name to everyone that mattered to him. Gut feelings are all well and good but there's a reason we don't think of mobs running trials in the streets.

I see the issue of freedom of action of the ignorant in the last chrons a little differently. The knowledge the great shakers gain is a more thorough understanding of the Laws that compose the world but it comes at the price of a lesser understanding of the little individuals that compose this world. So they don't just know more. They have a different kind of knowledge: an understanding of things that are big like them while the 'ignorant' understand the litle things like human lives and values. I suppose Covenant's solution comes naturally from this situation. He can't attack Foul and his associate who are all big player as an equal because they understand him at that level of things and can counter anything he tries. He need to descend back into the mortal mold and joins forces with the other little people who act at a level that is incomprehensible to the likes of Foul and Kestenessen.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Wow, excellent replies, WF and Shoe. I agree that what Donaldson is attempting to portray is admirable and has real world implications for all of us. My only gripe is with the execution, whether or not it's successful. Obviously, I tend to side with Shoe's interpretation that ignorance isn't an virtue--not that anyone is actually arguing that position, but it's a great way to sum up the criticism against taking Donaldson's idea too far. And it becomes especially apt if SRD's attempt isn't successful. If the ignorance could have been easily avoided, and if it's used merely as a plot device to get the characters where they need to be, in a way calculated more for readers than the characters, then "making a virtue" out of characters' ignorance is just rationalization after the fact.

Anyway, my criticisms are aimed more at the craft of story-telling, than the philosophical goals. In this thread, I'm focused on the mechanics of writing, and trying to sort out what works for me personally and what does not. But I do appreciate the added dimension the rest of you are bringing to it.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Zarathustra wrote: Anyway, my criticisms are aimed more at the craft of story-telling, than the philosophical goals. In this thread, I'm focused on the mechanics of writing, and trying to sort out what works for me personally and what does not. But I do appreciate the added dimension the rest of you are bringing to it.
On that basis, I'm pretty sure this particular mechanism wouldn't work at all with a different kind of goal/philosophy. It would almost surely result in what you [and others] IIRC have suggested...unnecessary and annoying, even offensive direct reader manipulation. A variation on badly done mystery novels where the detective solves by somehow having information that is available to neither characters NOR readers.

So, I've been thinking hard about why it generally works for me in this.
[not attempting proof/demonstration, just working from memory, the posts here, and trying to analyse/find the root of my own impressions that it IS working].
The short, hopefully simple-ish and clear-ish, version:
It seems to me that the lack of aid from those who "know," isn't only about keeping Linden ignorant. It is also about making themselves ignorant.
The advice they do give, and what they withhold, is meant to open different options.
To avoid the endings/futures they "know," they cannot tell Linden anything that will have a result they've seen. Or, perhaps, they can tell things about the places where there is only one path, but not about places where there are forks.
[LF OTOH, wants to limit options...he would determine them absolutely if he could].
That might really bug me, except they still make mistakes and take risks...and because often those aren't to alter future events/outcomes, but because they can't bear to ignore immediate pain/suffering even if helping now might turn out badly.

I also think it connects with something I've said other places several times...that intentions matter. Matter as much as, or more, than the acts and outcomes, but that's a tangent.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
SleeplessOne
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Ignorance as motivation/plot device

Post by SleeplessOne »

wayfriend wrote:Jumping in late, and can't begin to do just props to everyone's thoughts.

However, the idea of "ignorance as manipulation", or a rebuttal of that, seem to be overly concerned with outcomes.

We all live in a world where we are ignorant of many things. We all in hindsight have recognized warning signs, and wished they were more explicit. We have lots of people who seem to be sure they know what's going to happen to us, and happilly declare to us their prophesies for us. And, just to be fare, we're often manipulated by others, too.

That's life.

And, as I come to recognize more and more, Donaldson is trying to show us things that are about our world, and how we live in it. The fantasy has it's purpose, but the lessons are intended to be for RL.

So I think of it this way:

What's exciting about how someone handles things when they have all of the information? All they can be is right or wrong. Boring.

What's exciting is how someone handles things when they don't know. When they don't know, they aren't just guessing! They are falling back on their principals, and their values, and their ways-of-being-themselves. There's a tremendous amount of effort in picking what to do when you don't know. Soul searching and gut wrenching and hair pulling stuff. Rubber is hitting road, noses grindstones.

All of us have had the experience of making the right choice, even though it led to the wrong result. You say to yourself, or to another, Hey: you made the best decision you could have, based on what you knew.

Because, even when you don't know, there is still a best answer. And it's frequently having little relation to the one that having all the answers shows you.

Standing up for what you believe in. Being true to yourself. Fulfilling your responsibilities. Fighting without despair. -- All of these things are guides to the right answer in the face of ignorance.

It's the one that you won't regret having made. It's the one that preserves your soul. It's the one that gives you power. It's the one that helps you escape your prisons. It's the one that tames your demons.

So, to summarize, I think Donaldson is trying to tell us that how we decide what to do when we don't know what to do really does matter, and that there are good and bad choices to make in these situations, and he has reasons for why they are good and bad. Knowing this empowers you - you can be an effective passion.
this is very well summarized and really resonates with me WF; I was subconsciously mulling over similar thoughts this very evening as I was listening to AATE on audiobook.

I am at the point in the story where Linden, having just lost Liand and failed to free Jeremiah from the croyel, is at a complete loss as to how to move forward.

As the Giants and Ramen take solace in their various rituals in order to cope with the loss of Liand, something really clicked with me and I understood (even though it has been under my nose all along) that one of the major themes SRD has wanted to highlight is the application of one's personal ethics in the face of near-futility and complete uncertainty.

This has always been the case with TCoTC, SRD laid it out in when that lil' kid handed Covenant the 'question of ethics' paper in the first pages of LFB.

But more and more I am understanding that SRD is placing his natural interest in these matters on an even grander stage this time around - with very little to guide them, Linden and her friends are forced to search themselves for guidance and answers where there are none to be found.

In the first chronicles Covenant had any number of insightful and willing guides (not that this diminishes the nature of his ethical conundrums).

With the Masters actively fostering ignorance, very few in the Land are able to give counsel this time around.
At other points in the story, the threat to the Arch of Time has made ignorance a necessity.
And of course this air of ignorance is best exemplified by Kevin's Dirt.

Time and again Linden & co. have been forced to make decisions under extreme circumstances which has necessitated a range of sometimes contradictory problem-solving approaches; Linden & Covenant have even managed to justify the accomplishment of good through evil means on occasion.
Other times Linden has let practicality, rationality, gained wisdom or simple kindness guide her actions (and the same can be said of much of her company)

The forming of the company itself was a long exercise in ethical negotiations; the long passages at the Verge of Wandering where the Ramen and Haruchai (well, with Stave as their proxy) thrashed out their cultural grievances were a real examination of misplaced priorities and misunderstandings ultimately mediated by Linden herself.

In this light it's little wonder that SRD took the entirety of ROTE to really underscore each and every character's personal 'why' - despite having little conception of what they're getting themselves into due to reasons I've touched upon, each of Linden's companions has within them their own moral compass that compels them to either aid or at least accompany her in her quest which will either save or damn the Land.

I've been ambivalent about the LC's, but then again I recalled a while ago that despite my undiminishing love of the first chronicles there were nonetheless times when I found it a frustrating and elusive read first time around. Although I liked the books after that initial consumption, it wasn't until I re-read them (again and again) that I fully grasped the mastery at work.
I find myself actually having a similar experience this time around with the LC.
I have been immensely frustrated with the first three books at times; but I will flick through a chapter here or there and immediately I feel a greater resonance in the light of *my own ignorance being relieved as the series has progressed*.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Vraith wrote:On that basis, I'm pretty sure this particular mechanism wouldn't work at all with a different kind of goal/philosophy.
Oh yeah, I agree it wouldn't work without this philosophical rationalization. However, just because the philosophy is necessary to explain or account for this technique, doesn't mean it's sufficient. Why doesn't it violate this philosophy for some characters to try to stop or warn Linden vaguely, but not specifically? If her freedom and ignorance are "virtues," then why is it okay to attempt violating her freedom at all by trying to dissuade her from her choice? Why is it okay to give her knowledge at all, i.e. the vague knowledge of disaster, but not specific enough to count as a reader spoiler? That's a very odd and inconsistent philosophical point.

When you have the very characters who espouse this "philosophy" admitting that they erred--e.g. Findail in the example I gave above--then it's basically the admission that the philosophical point doesn't justify the practical point. Findail said he should have told Covenant about the Worm.
Vraith wrote:It would almost surely result in what you [and others] IIRC have suggested...unnecessary and annoying, even offensive direct reader manipulation. A variation on badly done mystery novels where the detective solves by somehow having information that is available to neither characters NOR readers.
That's a great way to describe the issue I have with this ... though opposite, in a sense.
Vraith wrote:It seems to me that the lack of aid from those who "know," isn't only about keeping Linden ignorant. It is also about making themselves ignorant.
The advice they do give, and what they withhold, is meant to open different options.
The Elohim could have told Linden and Covenant about the Worm, in either The One Tree or AATE, and no different options would have been on the table. The same choices would remain, with their objections still explicitly stated ... only with one additional piece of information that (unfortunately) would have spoiled the mystery for the readers. I don't see how the addition of this knowledge would have made either of them less free, or closed off additional options. Maybe you could be more specific?
SleeplessOne wrote: ... one of the major themes SRD has wanted to highlight is the application of one's personal ethics in the face of near-futility and complete uncertainty.
That's a great point. I agree. And in the particular example you cite, at that point in the book, I don't have a problem with the ignorance of the characters. But there's an important reason for that: at this point in the book, the characters' uncertainty about their next move isn't the artificial product of another character or characters withholding crucial information. It's natural, expected, and reasonable.

The points you make about the Masters and Kevin's Dirt are also great examples of how this theme works when done properly. I have no problem with either of those.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Zarathustra wrote:The Elohim could have told Linden and Covenant about the Worm, in either The One Tree or AATE, and no different options would have been on the table. The same choices would remain, with their objections still explicitly stated ... only with one additional piece of information that (unfortunately) would have spoiled the mystery for the readers. I don't see how the addition of this knowledge would have made either of them less free, or closed off additional options. Maybe you could be more specific?
Maybe. I should make clear, in case I didn't, that not everyone who predicts, or refuses to, does so for the same reasons. That's obvious in LF's case, naturally.
I think the elohim fall closer to the "bad guys" side than the "good guys" in some ways.
They are manipulators. They are liars.
They don't give a damn about Linden's freedom of choice [or TC's]. They care about limiting them. In that way, they resemble Lord Foul more than Lord Mhoram. They blame and fear our heroes, they do not trust, they are highly selfish and risk-averse, and they have their own purposes.
To be a bit trite: they remind me of some athletes...yea, they want to win, but what they really want is to win their way.

My overall feeling [though I'd have to dig up all the predictions or lack, and who made them or didn't to see if I'm really correct] is that the imposition/enforcement of ignorance is consistent with the character/background/purposes of the people doing so.

So, if they revealed the Worm/One Tree in the 2nd...then they'd have had to explain Findail, and Vain, and Linden and TC [probably...guesswork] would have said "Make the Staff, then." And they didn't WANT that option. It was their worse comes to worst option.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

I wouldn't presume that the Elohim were actually trying to dissuade anyone from rousing the Worm. I think that they know that it's inevitable, and even necessary. I think the Elohim are actually out to foster a feeling of guilt, so that they can get the ring.

I often wonder if it wasn't part of Foul's plan to be defeated twice, so that he can ensure an ultimate victory the third time around. Perhaps he saw that in some way, in some master clockwork of cause and effect, it was necessary to a final victory. If that were true, he wouldn't REALLY want to prevent Covenant from winning. (Not unless there was some other path to victory, anyway.) But he sure would talk about how Covenant can't win.

I think the Elohim are like that. They don't really want to prevent these things. (Not unless it presents them with a better alternative, anyway.) But they sure want to talk about how everyone is failing.
.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

The Elohim are basically Worm food, but you don't think they'd try to keep the Worm from rousing? Honestly, I hadn't considered that possibility. I think they'd have quite a lot at stake in making sure the destruction of their world didn't happen. We all know we're going to die, for instance, but we still try to keep it from happening as much as possible. Inevitability doesn't seem to make a difference in this calculation.

Without a doubt, Findail and Infelice tried to talk Linden and Covenant out of their respective plans. You're saying (or presuming) that this was a disingenuous ploy, that they actually want these horrible things to happen, in order to make them feel guilty, so they can get the ring. But isn't that exactly what Lord Foul is doing? From the perspective of originality alone, that seems a bit too redundant to believe, and in this sense it would be a much worse writer's mistake than the one I'm pointing out in this thread. It's one thing to have a plot hole--we're all human and make mistakes--but failing in creativity due to being purposely redundant isn't a fault I'd pin on Donaldson.

I think of the Elohim as overly-arrogant and too sure of their ability to be equal to all challenges, but unambiguously evil? No. They wouldn't bother with Appointing some of their number to sacrifice themselves for the preservation of Beauty and the Earth if that were the case (something Foul would never do). They wouldn't occupy a unique position in this mythology if that were the case, but merely be little Fouls.

And if this their ploy for the ring, then what's their reason for the ring? Foul wants to escape the world. The Elohim are the world. Escape for them has no meaning, as far as I can see.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

We are all here to do what we are all here to do, so sayeth The Oracle. Even the Elohim, as preservers of the Earth and ultimately Wormfood. Didn't Ambrose Bierce say something about us all becoming worm food when we die? Even Foul, in his role as "the rotten apple that spoils the whole barrel". Foul and the Elohim, though, are aware that those are their roles to play. Everyone else has to figure out their role before they can accurately fulfill it, hence the ignorance (which is different than stupidity).

If Foul is the flaw in the world, as I interpret Kasreyn's lore, then isn't a flaw the same thing as a weakness and isn't a weakness a strength that is being misapplied? If so, then perhaps Foul is ignorant of his true purpose...or simply chooses not to fulfill it.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
If Foul is the flaw in the world, as I interpret Kasreyn's lore, then isn't a flaw the same thing as a weakness and isn't a weakness a strength that is being misapplied? If so, then perhaps Foul is ignorant of his true purpose...or simply chooses not to fulfill it.
I always enjoy your posts on your "LF is a necessary flaw" theory. What you say here about flaw=weakeness->Strength makes sense within that theory.
But I see it differently...the necessary flaw of the world is Time.
LF is the necessary flaw in the realm of the Creator [perhaps in the Creator himself].
The world would have died...eventually...without LF. But it would have been a natural death. With LF it is unnatural...collateral damage/unintentional homicide by the Creator by displacing/denying LF's place.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand:
WF: I think the elohim did want to prevent the Worm rousing. But also there are other things they fear even more than the Worm. [primarily Jerry]
My thoughts keep returning to the idea that, in a world where Seers/Prophets/Oracles exist, [and in this world there are several, and of different kinds] the prime tool to avoid predetermination, to change the future, is to deny knowledge of those futures to those with the power to act.
Some of those with Sight [and the elo are one of them] don't want survival/future...they want a PARTICULAR survival/future.

But we know, we've been shown fairly regularly, and somewhere in AATE TC is pretty explicit: a KNOWN future is a wrong/failed future.

And, repeating myself, I guess...from the "outside," what matters as tool/technique is: do those with knowledge of the future reveal [or not] for reasons/motives consistent with character. My sense is that they do.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

I've made this distinction before, but for those who might be jumping right in and skipping the first couple pages: there's a difference between revealing magical, prescient foreknowledge, and revealing a little-known fact. If you know more about the structure of the world than most people--especially people who aren't from this world--you don't have to see the future to know which consequences are likely. To take my smoking example, I don't have to be psychic to warn my kids that smoking can cause cancer. And, to reiterate the main point, I don't take away their freedom or cheapen their decisions by telling them this.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
Lambolt
Stonedownor
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 10:02 pm

Post by Lambolt »

Actually if I had to make one criticism of SRDs writing its the over reliance in general of "reader distracting" with these kinds of ideas, you know, where characters seem like they have info but dont say it, or phrase it in prophecies or abstracted comments that seem like they'd make sense if you knew the truth but you dont so theyre just hanging there teasing. It was one thing with the Elohim discussions but I think sometimes it just gets too much when too many characters and too many plots are artificially "mystified" to make them seem important but without actually meaning anything at that time and just becoming frustrating.

anyone agree?
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Yes, I agree. That's part of my point. Too many characters are doing this to Linden, even when it would benefit the characters greatly just to be straight with her, with no other consequences except a minor diminishment of reader suspense. For instance, the Harrow starts off telling Linden that he can perform a task for her that no one else can perform. We get this repeated a couple times in Italics, teasing us (as you say), before the Harrow decides to get more explicit and tells her that he can take her to Jerimiah. Why not just tell her from the beginning? It would certainly help the Harrow for her to know this; makes his bargaining power stronger. What benefit was there to withholding it for 50 pages? Absolutely nothing, in terms of the plot. But it made the Harrow slightly more mysterious. A cheap ploy. In itself, that's not necessarily a problem, especially if it's part of a flamboyant character's schtick--someone who jealously guards his acquired knowledge and loves to boast about it, without revealing much. But when it's used by half a dozen main characters over and over, it's no longer characterization, but merely author's trick.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
PannionDude
Servant of the Land
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:00 pm

Post by PannionDude »

Hey man, sorry to reply to such an old thread, but I'd been thinking on the concept for a while, wanted to get my thoughts down.

First, I think you need to be wary of what I call the Swordsman's Objection. It goes something like "We are supposed to believe that A is an expert swordsman, and yet in the fight with B he made an attack that B blocked. He should have instead attacked from a different angle and thus killed B. Its a cheap out by the movie maker intended to draw out the combat. There's no advantage to A for making an unsuccessful attack, and a little later he does stab B so he can't be reluctant for any reason. "

Basically what I"m trying to convey is that insisting on optimal behavior from all parties is a cheap shot criticism for pretty much any books. After all, in the Chronicles where TC tells Linden, plainly and exactly, what not to do the creator presumably responds to LF's pollution of his work with a sternly worded reprimand rather than hurling him into the Arch of Time. Palpatine figures that a Galactic Empire is a lot of work and instead of machinating the Clone Wars he focuses on doing the best he can as a galactic senator.

This is coming off more condescending than I intended, I'm sorry. What I'm trying to say is that characters making mistakes (even ones that they should not) are a core component of fiction. The girl goes alone into the cellar. The Lords don't figure out that TC's boots are the problem for a long time. This isn't a narrative cheap trick, its narrative itself. There's no way to avoid it, no story that can avoid the "How It Should Have Ended" treatment making it look stupid. A story where everyone behaved optimally would be boring.

Ok, that said, let's examine the fact that a lot of people who would be better served by telling Linden facts instead give her cryptic nonsense.

There's a principal in the chronicles that characters have an immensely difficult time pretending. This is a Health Sense thing to some degree, but it goes beyond that. When a character acts outside of their, uh, call it genre for lack of a better term, its an earth shattering deal (LF infiltrating the Council). They go with what's familiar nearly all of the time.

LF meets TC for the first time and instantly alienates him, despite having every reason in the world not to. Five minutes of being A Jeroth the Lord would very likely have gotten the ring away from Covenant or gotten him to agree to free this poor imprisoned gentleman, but Foul instead goes with diabolical threats. He can't help himself, he's a contempt elemental.

The Elohim misleading the giants (Longwrath deal) is pretty much the least efficient way imaginable to stop Linden Avery from releasing the Worm. They don't even lie to them! They don't Appoint someone to stop her. They don't take the Krill away from the children. They see something bad in the future, so they go back to their past and use their trump card...complicated manipulation of mortals. They can't help it, its their thing.

And so I think a large part of your objection can be done away with by the fact that in this world everyone putts with their drivers. The Haruchai attempt a martial arts fight with the Flash, after watching him take out one of their guys, because that's what they do. Martial arts fights are their thing. There isn't anyone who's 'thing' is carefully and competently telling Linden what she needs to know and do, because that would be boring.

The other part of my response to this is that all of the omniscient characters seem to be strangely powerless. Basically the more timeless knowledge you have the more paralyzed you are. My pet theory is that your knowledge includes what you can do in the future.

The Creator does basically nothing, and he could totally just tell Linden etc. what's going on: (email to Linden: Re: Joan, don't give her back her ring. Let her die. TTFN).

The Elohim do nothing up to the point of being destroyed. The insequent, while vastly less powerful are vastly more active.

The Dead give only cryptic suggestions. Covenant himself has complete knowledge of all that is and will be, and he's a member of Team Obscure while he's a shade.

(Stephen Collings's question in the gradual interview points this out with respect to The Dead's behavior in The One Tree. SRD's response details how unearned knowledge is dangerous)

I don't think he means that it is dangerous to their outcomes. As you point out, its hard to imagine knowledge making Linden's awakening of the Worm worse, I mean it's dangerous to, for want of a better term, the integrity of the world?

The TimeWarden can see everything that has ever happened or will happen. Can he change his behavior in response? And see how those changes will propogate? If so then any interaction on his part will strip from those he interacts with their freedom. This is inherently wrong. Better that all existence perish. He'd have stayed entirely silent if he could stand for Linden to believe that she was abandoned.

Wow, that was a long post. Well, there's my best answer to your objection.
TLDR version:
1. Remember that characters are allowed to make mistakes in stories.
2. Good powerful characters can't change the choices of others because that's LF's schtick and in this world you can only do your own schtick.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

I don't understand how my criticism is a "cheap shot for pretty much any book," unless you think that characters purposely withholding key information from the protagonist is simply inherent to every book, every character. Even if this were true (which I'd deny), it's not the case that every character has to do this in a way that seems calculated more for audience reaction, than an expression of the characters. I've already listed many instances where this technique is done in a way that is justifiable and makes sense. Esmer's withholding information makes sense, given the dictates of his contradictory nature. Roger and LF withholding information from Linden makes sense, because they obviously want to mislead and manipulate her. So if there are times when it's appropriate, it's also legitimate to suppose that there are times when it's not. And given that I'm focused on just those times--not a universal complaint that would preclude any suspense of tension whatsoever--then it's not a cheap shot.

The instances that bug me the most aren't the ones involving antagonists or opponents. I'm talking more about her friends, the people who actually want to help her, purposely being cryptic. (So your sword fighting analogy isn't applicable. Linden isn't trying best her friends.)

I don't insist upon "optimal behavior" from all parties. And I'm certainly not arguing that characters shouldn't make mistakes at all. I understand that basic storytelling involves suspense and an expectation that the narrative conflict will be comprised of true obstacles. Linden can't be omnipotent, she has to have limits, otherwise there isn't a story. But you can't make her powers more believable by including limits that don't make sense in themselves. If they're created only to thwart her, without making sense on their own, then it's merely contrived.

Your example about LF makes some sense to me. LF is a twisted S.O.B., so it makes sense that he would be misleading. But I don't agree that alienating Covenant hurts his goal (just the opposite, in his mind), nor do I agree that he could have talked Covenant out of his ring in five minutes if he were nice.

Your Elohim example is closer to what I'm talking about. Their inexplicable behavior is explained away too easily by constantly refering to their arrogance. This sounds like, "god works in mysterious ways," to me. It's a cop-out for things that don't make sense, that contradict our reasonable expectations, and sometimes even our beliefs. It's a cop-out because literally anything could attributed to "part of god's (or Elohim's) plan" with that argument. Elohim can be dropped into a scene when they're needed to increase the tension (e.g. end of Fatal Revenant), or withheld from other scenes where they'd harm the story by resolving the tension (e.g. Roger/croyal/Earthblood). And because the logic of their presence or absence is calculated for effect, the reason (i.e. arrogance) becomes insignificant. An after-thought. Ad hoc.
And so I think a large part of your objection can be done away with by the fact that in this world everyone putts with their drivers. The Haruchai attempt a martial arts fight with the Flash, after watching him take out one of their guys, because that's what they do. Martial arts fights are their thing. There isn't anyone who's 'thing' is carefully and competently telling Linden what she needs to know and do, because that would be boring.
The last part only makes my point. If something exists only because it would be "boring" to have it otherwise, then it's calculated merely for reader effect, rather than character authenticity. It would be better if the story dictated that it couldn't be otherwise, and thus avoiding reader boredom was merely a desirable side-effect. There are many things that could make a story "not boring," and yet undermine its integrity or believability. Did Fonzi really have to jump the shark? Sure, it wasn't boring .. the epitome of spectacle. But wasn't it also a bit ridiculous and out of character?
SRD's response details how unearned knowledge is dangerous.
And I've detailed how that's not always true, how sometimes unearned knowledge is much less dangerous than the alternative. I've also detailed how SRD violates his own tenet whenever it suits him, giving out all kinds of unearned knowledge if the story needs it.
The TimeWarden can see everything that has ever happened or will happen. Can he change his behavior in response? And see how those changes will propogate? If so then any interaction on his part will strip from those he interacts with their freedom. This is inherently wrong. Better that all existence perish. He'd have stayed entirely silent if he could stand for Linden to believe that she was abandoned.
He does tell her what to do ("Find me," "You need the Staff,") advice which shapes the entire course of this story. So how is it inherently wrong? If a little is okay, why not more? Etc.
This is coming off more condescending than I intended, I'm sorry.
Heh, that's a fault I'm guilty of way too often, so I wouldn't mind, but I honestly didn't think you sounded condescending.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
Post Reply

Return to “Against All Things Ending”