Kevin's Watch

Seems like there should be a thread for the discussion of the Ardent, and his fellow Insequents. SRD has no problem sacrificing theses characters but thats no excuse to 2nd rate them.

I like the idea of this, Ardent. To experience the new, the un-experienced, the colors of burning flame, Passion, corpulent, jovial,garrulous, almost a Falstaff; maybe the word I'm looking for is gregarious. As an interior landscape character,,an ethereal Insequent at that, this one the author balances out the Harrow. But these Insequent ..seem destined to serve, then melt away into insanity then evaporate. Like a cloud, perhaps they mite condense back together again?

Yea, I don't like seeing them go. I suppose that is the authors Intent tho: These Insequent ,,amongst themselves know, not to tread on each other. Rather of extremes in nature, hhhmmm..the idea, that the polarized existence..for everything there is an opposite,,,always brings conflict,,inevitably,,and that conflict always ends up with a winner and a looooser..But..what happens if,,the two opposing sides,,both are good ideas? Why should one Lose? Perhaps Mahdoubts passing ,,The Ardent's fade, ,,all the way back to Theomach..but it is with the Ardent,,it seems to me, the author is making his point clearer: how is it that we accept that there must be a winner and a loooooser when there is conflict? Just because Ardent was assigned to balance out the Harrow..then the Harrow gets dead..therefore The Ardents task and obligation is at failed end so he must die too..?..A good idea a year ago no longer fits todays circumstances,,so get rid of the good idea..?? Any body else seeing problem here? Theres a fallacy amongst the Insequent. IMHO the Insequent need to rise above this...winner/loser thang they got going. The Deal they have amongst themselves,is self defeating it seems to me. Sooner or later there is going to be Only One Insequent left standing. What a shame. Its like watching Last Comic Standing...a good joke is a good joke..If its told by 3rd place comedian..its not a good joke? Yea.. I know,,it means all the other comedians will steal it tho.

I'm at a loss to explain the Insequents' strictures. But they strike me as similar, in some ways, to those of the Haruchai. Neither race will accept anything less than perfection, and failure results in death.

That's similar to Linden's -- and Covenant's -- opinions of their own failings. Neither one of them can seem to forgive themselves for being human and making mistakes.

aliantha wrote:I'm at a loss to explain the Insequents' strictures. But they strike me as similar, in some ways, to those of the Haruchai. Neither race will accept anything less than perfection, and failure results in death.

That's similar to Linden's -- and Covenant's -- opinions of their own failings. Neither one of them can seem to forgive themselves for being human and making mistakes.

Yea.." perfection.." that helps Ali..like a quasi Faustian Deal... If I ever see perfection,,( something that doesn't need or want for improvement) then the devil can have my soul..Another way of saying..If ever I come to end of exploring and discovering,then I am dead...the roots of " Romanticism", thank you Goethe. So,,their drive towards " Perfection" is off target. Its the drive they should be into rather than the " Perfection"..? So..in conflict, its not the winning with accompanying losership..but a combining of the good or best of both sides for an even better, that one should be thinking about..? Kinda like fantasy football,,were your best chosen players get you points regardless of which teams they belong to..?

The Insequents " strictures"..in consequence appears self defeating. What a loss,,every time one fades!

I'll have to refresh my memory on some of the details...but I don't think their deaths from interfering/failure are something they have a choice about/do/decided...it is literally an aspect of their power/nature.
A sort of "necessity of freedom" from the other side: they are forced to allow other Insequent freedom...or pay the price.
And it isn't really winner/loser in the normal sense: In any direct confrontation between two of them, both sides both win and lose.
There's a lot I haven't figured out about them yet...they might be the most unique creatures in the Chron's...I won't be sure till I comprehend them, though.

I just re-read the Ardent's last scenes today. I agree with you, Vraith, that the Insequent oppose one another when they can -- which is one reason, I suppose, that they live apart from one another. But they also strive for individual greatness, for perfect attainment of their goals -- and the price they pay for failure is the loss of name and mind and life. Either they succeed, or they go crazy and die.

It's interesting to me that Linden can see the injustice of the Argent's demise, but can't stop from being so hard on herself. She thinks -- and Covenant does, too -- that the other Insequent should spare the Argent, that they're too hard on him, that failure shouldn't equal death. And yet neither Linden nor Covenant is capable of forgiving themselves for their own failures.

Vraith wrote:I'll have to refresh my memory on some of the details...but I don't think their deaths from interfering/failure are something they have a choice about/do/decided...it is literally an aspect of their power/nature.
A sort of "necessity of freedom" from the other side: they are forced to allow other Insequent freedom...or pay the price.
And it isn't really winner/loser in the normal sense: In any direct confrontation between two of them, both sides both win and lose.
There's a lot I haven't figured out about them yet...they might be the most unique creatures in the Chron's...I won't be sure till I comprehend them, though.

Well yea..I'm saying their nature..the source of their power..is flawed. Its black or white..no grey..as Ali puts it,,no room for mistakes...which means what? They can be the Best at whatever..but they Can't Improve Upon It..If you Try to improve upon it..then that means you might make a mistake,,and if you make a mistake..you're done..you lose. The Ardent can collect all the unexperienced experiences..but can he make his own? hhhmm..kinda makes sense why he failed with SWMNBN..

IMHO Thats wrong. From our mistakes we learn how to succeed..You know how WD40 got its name right? Yea..the first 39 attempts to making the stuff failed.

As I am no fan of the insertion of the Insequent in the Last Chron's, while trying to keep an open mind, I'd say that the Ardent is an interesting character. The magic of the various Insequent feels fresh, and alien. Which could be one of the intended effects. Alien in the sense that they do not fit in the Land's world. The Theomach felt more a part of it. The Ardent less so.

At the same time he and the Insequent are a very handy plot-device, with all the teleportations going on. And a moment that I truly disliked: His rescue when the Hazard broke. I mean, come on...

So he and his people do not escape the flavor of contrivance, in my opinion. Because the teleportations serve the narrative to help the characters get from here to there quicker, with the timebomb of the Worm looming over them. That's besides all the previous teleportations through a caesure, through Esmer, through Roger and the croyel. One of the things that was so exciting for me about the Illearth War was the physical strain of the traveling army of Hile Troy. The suspense created by their journey was amazing.

So this is a different mode of transportation, with a different effect. More like a surprise than suspense. One of the reasons I enjoyed AATE was that it became clearer where the story is heading. Hence, suspense. By the way, I realized that I've never had this problem with the Gap series. Hmm.

lurch wrote: Well yea..I'm saying their nature..the source of their power..is flawed. Its black or white..no grey..as Ali puts it,,no room for mistakes...which means what? They can be the Best at whatever..but they Can't Improve Upon It..If you Try to improve upon it..then that means you might make a mistake,,and if you make a mistake..you're done..you lose. The Ardent can collect all the unexperienced experiences..but can he make his own? hhhmm..kinda makes sense why he failed with SWMNBN..

IMHO Thats wrong. From our mistakes we learn how to succeed..You know how WD40 got its name right? Yea..the first 39 attempts to making the stuff failed.

The Insequent have "laws" of some kind that are beyond mere human agreements.
Are the Insequent even human?
The Ardent failed what he agreed to do (to be honest I don't understand what he failed. I didn't think he agreed to keep the Harrow alive) and so was "lost".

It sounds like there's no debate or option for them when they fail.
It would be like you trying to change yourself into a spoon by having a discussion about it with your co-workers. Doesn't matter what you all think, it's not going to happen by everyone coming to an agreement.

Call it DNA or chemical makeup or magnets, that's how they are.

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

lurch wrote: Well yea..I'm saying their nature..the source of their power..is flawed. Its black or white..no grey..as Ali puts it,,no room for mistakes...which means what? They can be the Best at whatever..but they Can't Improve Upon It..If you Try to improve upon it..then that means you might make a mistake,,and if you make a mistake..you're done..you lose. The Ardent can collect all the unexperienced experiences..but can he make his own? hhhmm..kinda makes sense why he failed with SWMNBN..

IMHO Thats wrong. From our mistakes we learn how to succeed..You know how WD40 got its name right? Yea..the first 39 attempts to making the stuff failed.

The Insequent have "laws" of some kind that are beyond mere human agreements.
Are the Insequent even human?
The Ardent failed what he agreed to do (to be honest I don't understand what he failed. I didn't think he agreed to keep the Harrow alive) and so was "lost".

It sounds like there's no debate or option for them when they fail.
It would be like you trying to change yourself into a spoon by having a discussion about it with your co-workers. Doesn't matter what you all think, it's not going to happen by everyone coming to an agreement.

Call it DNA or chemical makeup or magnets, that's how they are.

Yes..thats the point, " thats how they are"..Yet by their exaggerated extreme..their acceptance of this .".how they are" and thus the consequence..isn't the author inviting a value judgment of their.."how it is"..?
Seems to me..gathering knowledge for hundreds, thousands of years and for it all to be lost over ridiculous slights or minuscule infringements..conflicts created by themselves..is Big Time waste..I mean these likable characters getting wasted over trivial issues..like the Ardent's case..seems the point the author is making. That the Insequent have accepted their " stricture" and we / Linden are shown the folly of it, seems the authors doing.. Perhaps,,accepting the ,," thats how it is" is what the author is suggesting for us to move away from.? ..a deeper and broader variation of..Do something they don't expect..?

Perhaps their insanity that they fade into..is them realizing the foolishness of their " laws" that they have accepted.

There was a comment somewhere in the book that states that power/people are effective if they have limitations, and that the elohim cannot seem to do anything because they have no limits. Surely the self-imposed limits of the insequent are what gives them the potential to make a difference? The fact that the strictures they have are so unforgiving is probably what gives them their magic. As kasreyn said, in the absence of white gold, in each work one must place a flaw, lest their be no work at all.

Looking for definitions of "insequent", I stumbled across this:

Insequent stream: (hydrology) A stream that has developed on the present surface, but not consequent upon it, and seemingly not controlled or adjusted by the rock structure and surface features.


What with all the talk about water - maybe it could shed a little light on them.

One thing first: (pg. 53) "According to the Theomach, the Insequent were seldom petty when their desires opposed those of the Elohim." No doubt the Ardent's purpose, and thus the Insequent's purpose, somehow served to oppose the Elohim.

When the Ardent first enters the story and arrived in Andelain, he was initially there to make sure that the bargain between the Harrow and Linden be held to her particular interpretation of it.

He explains that he represents the combined will of the Insequent; that their isolation and insatiety is what allows them to become powerful; and that they have joined together to aid the Harrow's purpose. But I think that the very act of involving themselves in the Harrow's purpose, though the intent was to aid in its fulfillment, added a kind of stricture to that very purpose.

The Ardent later in the book talks about the Insequent being able to foresee numerous future scenarios, but none of them conclusively. His participation in the trek to the Lost Deep, while an aid in one way, may also have been a betrayal in another. It may have added a factor unforeseen or unforeseeable by the Insequent which ultimately led to his undoing.

It seems that the Ardent is sort of like an Appointed Insequent. Every Elohim ever Appointed wound up bound in some structure: the Collosus, the Durance, the Staff of Law. Or rather, they had an ultimately concretized restriction placed on their otherwise boundless selves. That seems to be the nature of their fate when specifically limited, and is what their race fears from Jeremiah. The Insequent, however, fade from name and mind and life, which is in some way diametrically opposed to the fate of the Elohim.

Prover of Life wrote:Looking for definitions of "insequent", I stumbled across this:

Insequent stream: (hydrology) A stream that has developed on the present surface, but not consequent upon it, and seemingly not controlled or adjusted by the rock structure and surface features.


What with all the talk about water - maybe it could shed a little light on them.

That's an interesting find, especially since their power is wild-magic like.
That connects with the absoluteness of the strictures on their power...without the restrictions, their power would tend toward chaos/rampage...just like TC's biggest problem when he figured out white-gold wasn't to use it, but to stop it/control it/restrain it.

Vraith wrote:

Prover of Life wrote:Looking for definitions of "insequent", I stumbled across this:

Insequent stream: (hydrology) A stream that has developed on the present surface, but not consequent upon it, and seemingly not controlled or adjusted by the rock structure and surface features.


What with all the talk about water - maybe it could shed a little light on them.

That's an interesting find, especially since their power is wild-magic like.
That connects with the absoluteness of the strictures on their power...without the restrictions, their power would tend toward chaos/rampage...just like TC's biggest problem when he figured out white-gold wasn't to use it, but to stop it/control it/restrain it.

Yeah... what's the song say:

wild magic graven in every rock waiting for white gold to release or control?

Prover of Life wrote:Looking for definitions of "insequent", I stumbled across this:

Insequent stream: (hydrology) A stream that has developed on the present surface, but not consequent upon it, and seemingly not controlled or adjusted by the rock structure and surface features.


What with all the talk about water - maybe it could shed a little light on them.

I think it describes the Insequent pretty well. They are detached . They are like encyclopedias in a way; made of everything around them but nothing of themselves. The Ardents failure at the bridge was due to not being able to do something unique himself ...? Mahdoubts " cloak" was made by its contributors, not by Mahdoubt herself..? Perhaps " Idealists" or Idealism would fit them: Concepts associated to a situation or circumstance but not directly controlled or adjusted to the reality of the rock and the hard places..?

"Insequent" as a term doesn't have anything to do with water, I am afraid. It has to do with cause and effect. Something is insequent when it is not "consequent"; that is, when it isn't the consequence of something else. (In the case of a stream, it is insequent when it's flow isn't caused by the surrounding rock structure.)

When we speak of free will, we also speak of it's opposite, which is predestination. That's the idea that all are actions are caused by something. If you have free will, then you can do something that isn't the consequence of something else.

So "Insequent", to me, refers to free will in some way.

How that applies to the Insequent we have met is anyone's guess. It just feels right to me.

But I strongly suspect that it is based on the idea than an Insequent cannot be constrained by other Insequent. What they do cannot be controlled or adjusted by their surrounding social structure or their individual features.

The Ardent failed what he agreed to do (to be honest I don't understand what he failed. I didn't think he agreed to keep the Harrow alive) and so was "lost".

I just reread that part of the book and im glad someone else share my incomprehension. So the Ardent falls into madness because he FAILED to do something. We are told that they Insequent fall when they interfere with one another. But OK, there was some sort of geas involved in his case. Still: It was not a conscious choice from the Ardent to withdraw help. He was hypnotized like the rest of the gang by the water trap of the Viles.

Condemning him to madness and death for a very understandable failure seems harsh and uncessesary. Maybe its because he was the most likable Insequent so far. The way Donaldson throws them into the mix, and then offs them as abruptly, contributes heavily to the feeling of "plot device". Not only are they recent and odd additions to the lands bestiary, we never get a chance to really develop any relation with them.

And while im on the subject of the Insequent: Why did the ur-viles attack the Harrow in the battle of First Woodhelven? Later in the Lost Deep they seem to accept his purpose and leave him in peace.

My guess is because he was trying to take her Staff and ring before she resurrected Covenant.

Atrium wrote:And while im on the subject of the Insequent: Why did the ur-viles attack the Harrow in the battle of First Woodhelven? Later in the Lost Deep they seem to accept his purpose and leave him in peace.

Because he could unmake them? I read that bit last night (or early this morning). There were three battles going on at once there.

Murrin: But didnt the Mahdoubt extract of him a promise to let Linden decide for herself?

Iolanthe: He could, and that made him dangerous to them, sure. But he still had that knowledge in AATE, and they left him in peace. Their strategic choice in that particular battle, of fighting three powerful individuals at once, of whom only Roger was per deifinition evil and bent on the destruction of them and Lindens company, is strange. Weird, or wûrd ?