I think you didn't get what I was trying to say. Or maybe you did and you just see things differently. We tend to disagree most of the time, don't we?TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:Foul understands humans insofar as they reflect aspects of himself. Donaldson has written that Foul despairs but is not aware of it, so he strives to create (reflect back) despair in others. In psychological terms this is called 'projection.'shadowbinding shoe wrote:Yes. Though I always thought of him as a sort of ultimate chess-master that is able to predict every feasible option. The other enemies like Roger are powerful fools blinded by their own shortcomings but he's a master schemer.TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I quite agree. Foul's incomprehension of this side of human nature has been his weakness all along. I believe this was stated somewhere in AATE.
And isn't his ability to inspire despair and despite like a maestro a testament that he can understand ?human? nature and emotions?
They despair, but they do not become Landwasters. There are other answers to Despite.shadowbinding shoe wrote:So how can he fail time after time? Is it that he sees only the surface of things? That he cannot grasp deeper motivations and strengths? No, that's not quite it. I think it is that he believes in the rationality of emotions. To him hope and love exist but they must be founded on a rational basis. So when his enemies continue to hope and love and strive when there is no rational reason to do so instead of despairing like he expects them to it defies his understanding and meticulous planning.
Let's see. You say Foul can only understand despair and not positive emotions. To me that seems impossible. How can there be only one side of the coin? To have despair you must first experience better things, or know of them. Otherwise you'll just be resigned.
Foul knows how to wound people emotionally. How to destroy their happiness. Can you do such things without knowing anything about what you're hurting? Surely the inspired ways he finds to achieve his aims show us how well he understands his foes in some ways at least.
When I talked about rationality in emotions I didn't say despite was inevitable. That wasn't what I was talking about. What I tried to highlight was two ways the world can be perceived that I think lie at the root of the conflict between Foul and his successful foes.
Think about people with suicidal tendencies or even just depression. There's a certain subtype that tells you that they thought about it rationality and they see no reason to want life. Everything they'll do is meaningless since even the greatest people leave no mark behind them after enough time passes. Life is full of ugliness and misery, they'll tell you, just open the newspapers. Life is just a drag. Why should they want to live?
How can you answer such arguments? The answer in the end tends to be an irrational one. One rooted in sentimentality and the awakening of suppressed emotions. For life is not a rational thing. The will to live is not rooted in our intellect.
Lord Foul is Despite because he takes the rational approach to its bitter end while his opponents triumph because they embrace the irrationality of their emotions. They continue to hope when all cause for hope fails, they continue to strive when things look hopeless.
Was this philosophical concept the basis on which Donaldson built Lord Foul?
His unchallenged intelligence and his hate of life makes me think that this might be the case.