Kevin's Watch

There is a theme that comes back time after time throughout the Chronicles: the heroes must not kill. Every time it happens it is a horrible sin with huge consequences.

And yet the people of the Land do kill. Even the ones who swore the Oath of Peace. And their leaders, the Lords use their magic to do it on a large scale. Those Lords are not condemned or tainted by their actions.

Why is it so different when Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery do it?

earthbrah wrote:Some wounds just have to be cut out.

But not by our hands

I'm thinking of the good cannot be accomplished by evil means argument. Since messiahs or savior figures are themselves often seen to be pure or "good" beyond what anyone else is capable of, then killing for one of them will seem extra wrong and horrible.

The idea is essentially about levels. Like: killing is always wrong, but when an innocent child does it, its wronger. And when a redemptive savior does it, it's wrongest.

Possible AATE Spoiler

earthbrah wrote:I'm thinking of the good cannot be accomplished by evil means argument. Since messiahs or savior figures are themselves often seen to be pure or "good" beyond what anyone else is capable of, then killing for one of them will seem extra wrong and horrible.

The idea is essentially about levels. Like: killing is always wrong, but when an innocent child does it, its wronger. And when a redemptive savior does it, it's wrongest.

Apparently, messiahs hold themselves to a higher standard, although slaughtering massive amounts of Cavewights has no effect on Linden's conscience. Yet such things were quite devastating to Covenant in LFB, and he did not see himself as any Messiah. The concept of accomplishing good through evil means always appears in the context of possession, correct? And Mhoram had no issue with going to war against Foul's armies, despite Covenant reminding him of his Oath.

It's not only that messiah figures hold themselves to higher standards, but those around them do the same.

I remember Foamfollower telling Covenant in the first trilogy that hope lies in the importance and worth of the thing served, not in the quality or the flaws of the one performing the service. By this logic, evil means become somewhat irrelevant. Sin from the server is deemphasized in the light of the worth of the thing being (pre)served. And as an extension of this way of thinking, Foamfollower supported Covenant to the bitter end, even when all seemed hopeless, for himself and for the Land. I mean my god, Saltheart continued to seek to preserve the Land and support the Unbeliever even after experiencing the despair of seeing his Unhomed family led to self-desecration...that's a powerful belief in beauty and truth and a magnificent story to behold!

Other races in the Land see this issue differently...

One other thing...

Worm wrote:

Yet such things were quite devastating to Covenant in LFB, and he did not see himself as any Messiah.

They were also devastating to Foamfollower. The one scene that still pisses me off more than any other in all the books is when Foamfollower gave the hurtloam to that Cavewight instead of taking it for himself. That, I think, is a great example of his way of thinking about service. He was so overwrought with having had to kill at all, that he denied himself the healing that the hurtloam would bring him. Perhaps this was a flaw, perhaps not, but he did not see himself as a messiah any more than Covenant did at that point. Is this reflective of holding oneself to a higher standard?

earthbrah wrote:One other thing...

Worm wrote:

Yet such things were quite devastating to Covenant in LFB, and he did not see himself as any Messiah.

They were also devastating to Foamfollower. The one scene that still pisses me off more than any other in all the books is when Foamfollower gave the hurtloam to that Cavewight instead of taking it for himself. That, I think, is a great example of his way of thinking about service. He was so overwrought with having had to kill at all, that he denied himself the healing that the hurtloam would bring him. Perhaps this was a flaw, perhaps not, but he did not see himself as a messiah any more than Covenant did at that point. Is this reflective of holding oneself to a higher standard?

I don't think empathy is reflective of holding oneself to a higher standard, it is a natural social reaction to another's pain.

Why is it so different when Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery do it?

Because the " people" of the Land are permanent parties so to speak and Thomas and Linden are transitory, passing thru. TC and Linden are on arcs, quests, therefore Change is at the center of their character existence . The Lords et al are stuck with their " standards" and end up dealing with the consequences that the Change brings by TC and Linden.

Eventually the habitual perception of Good vs Evil in all things Land becomes so blurred that the so called " standards" are let go of, for a third or another way to deal with the polarized reality of the Land. TC finally lets loose with all the reality of The Wild Magic at end of the first chronicles. TC sacrifices himself at end of 2nd Chron for a place in the reality of All Time ; a reality above and beyond our ability to comprehend as pointed out in the opening of AATE.

WE or even the characters of the Land may hold characters to higher standards, but TC and Linden evolve above and beyond these " standards"..imho. Labeling events and circumstances as Good or Evil, thus held to a " standard" appears to be the first step in what the author calls, " the logic of despair." Letting go of that way of thinking and perceiving and placing Trust in another way ,that leads to positive rather than the negative despair in all its camouflaged manifestations, seems to me Linden's arc,brought to clarity in AATE.

lurch wrote:Why is it so different when Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery do it?

Because the " people" of the Land are permanent parties so to speak and Thomas and Linden are transitory, passing thru. TC and Linden are on arcs, quests, therefore Change is at the center of their character existence . The Lords et al are stuck with their " standards" and end up dealing with the consequences that the Change brings by TC and Linden.

Eventually the habitual perception of Good vs Evil in all things Land becomes so blurred that the so called " standards" are let go of, for a third or another way to deal with the polarized reality of the Land. TC finally lets loose with all the reality of The Wild Magic at end of the first chronicles. TC sacrifices himself at end of 2nd Chron for a place in the reality of All Time ; a reality above and beyond our ability to comprehend as pointed out in the opening of AATE.

WE or even the characters of the Land may hold characters to higher standards, but TC and Linden evolve above and beyond these " standards"..imho. Labeling events and circumstances as Good or Evil, thus held to a " standard" appears to be the first step in what the author calls, " the logic of despair." Letting go of that way of thinking and perceiving and placing Trust in another way ,that leads to positive rather than the negative despair in all its camouflaged manifestations, seems to me Linden's arc,brought to clarity in AATE.

I think Covenant would see this from the same perspective as a Donaldson quote, to paraphrase: "I'm not a hero, I'm just a guy who writes books for a living." Nor is Covenant an anti-hero. I'm not sure what you mean by positive despair, unless it's something like making lemonade out of lemons.

I meant not to link the word positive,,to despair. I am not saying positive despair and negative despair in that sentence. Yet, you bring up an interesting perception.." positive despair"..This is what the author is getting at : there is good and evil . Its all rather subjective. So, rather than choose between them..for any Truth, any Standard,,mix the two diametrically opposed and find Your ( in this case Linden's) own Truth, own reality. So..despair exists and is a usual spiral down into a black hole of existence..but despair can be of Use if its realized and used,,as perhaps a motivator, or catalyst or agent to get one to a reality that rises above the fray between Good vs Evil....thanks!

lurch wrote:Why is it so different when Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery do it?

Because the " people" of the Land are permanent parties so to speak and Thomas and Linden are transitory, passing thru. TC and Linden are on arcs, quests, therefore Change is at the center of their character existence . The Lords et al are stuck with their " standards" and end up dealing with the consequences that the Change brings by TC and Linden.

Eventually the habitual perception of Good vs Evil in all things Land becomes so blurred that the so called " standards" are let go of, for a third or another way to deal with the polarized reality of the Land. TC finally lets loose with all the reality of The Wild Magic at end of the first chronicles. TC sacrifices himself at end of 2nd Chron for a place in the reality of All Time ; a reality above and beyond our ability to comprehend as pointed out in the opening of AATE.

WE or even the characters of the Land may hold characters to higher standards, but TC and Linden evolve above and beyond these " standards"..imho. Labeling events and circumstances as Good or Evil, thus held to a " standard" appears to be the first step in what the author calls, " the logic of despair." Letting go of that way of thinking and perceiving and placing Trust in another way ,that leads to positive rather than the negative despair in all its camouflaged manifestations, seems to me Linden's arc,brought to clarity in AATE.

That sounds like a dangerous attitude to life. It's typical in fact of real-world monsters from our own history. I don't think TC and Linden believe they are above good and evil. When Linden for example kills the cavewights with white magic in this book (the scene that brought about this thread in fact) she is appalled at herself. Her companions are as well.

Covenant's theory that only the guilty have power (to redeem) would fall flat if he held your view and had no guilt over his actions.



Edit to add - Oh, I see you wrote another post Lurch. Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say? Or took it too far at least?

There is something to what you say. When we compare Covenant and the Humbled attitude on such issues we can see that the Humbled are too dogmatic, too quick to judge, while Covenant believes that any being must be given the chance to redeem itself as exemplified by his interaction with the Lurker of the Sarangrave and its servants.

But I don't think our duo disdain distinctions between good and evil. That they serve a higher ideal. They know good and evil and recognize as such the actions they take. It's that they recognize that they are limited in their ability to act because all said and done they are not omnipotent and thus have to make compromises.

The resulting guilt that comes from such compromises is the whip that goad them to transcend themselves.

lurch wrote:I meant not to link the word positive,,to despair. I am not saying positive despair and negative despair in that sentence. Yet, you bring up an interesting perception.." positive despair"..This is what the author is getting at : there is good and evil . Its all rather subjective. So, rather than choose between them..for any Truth, any Standard,,mix the two diametrically opposed and find Your ( in this case Linden's) own Truth, own reality. So..despair exists and is a usual spiral down into a black hole of existence..but despair can be of Use if its realized and used,,as perhaps a motivator, or catalyst or agent to get one to a reality that rises above the fray between Good vs Evil....thanks!

I recall reading something about a Harlan Ellison short story in which a man from the "real" world is somehow transported to a fantasy realm, where he then performs the opposite of the hero role. He rapes the damsel in distress, betrays all the good guys, and then stabs the bad guy in the back like a coward instead of confronting him head on.

Is that what you mean by a personal Truth which transcends Good and Evil?

shadowbinding shoe wrote:

lurch wrote:Why is it so different when Thomas Covenant or Linden Avery do it?

Because the " people" of the Land are permanent parties so to speak and Thomas and Linden are transitory, passing thru. TC and Linden are on arcs, quests, therefore Change is at the center of their character existence . The Lords et al are stuck with their " standards" and end up dealing with the consequences that the Change brings by TC and Linden.

Eventually the habitual perception of Good vs Evil in all things Land becomes so blurred that the so called " standards" are let go of, for a third or another way to deal with the polarized reality of the Land. TC finally lets loose with all the reality of The Wild Magic at end of the first chronicles. TC sacrifices himself at end of 2nd Chron for a place in the reality of All Time ; a reality above and beyond our ability to comprehend as pointed out in the opening of AATE.

WE or even the characters of the Land may hold characters to higher standards, but TC and Linden evolve above and beyond these " standards"..imho. Labeling events and circumstances as Good or Evil, thus held to a " standard" appears to be the first step in what the author calls, " the logic of despair." Letting go of that way of thinking and perceiving and placing Trust in another way ,that leads to positive rather than the negative despair in all its camouflaged manifestations, seems to me Linden's arc,brought to clarity in AATE.

That sounds like a dangerous attitude to life. It's typical in fact of real-world monsters from our own history. I don't think TC and Linden believe they are above good and evil. When Linden for example kills the cavewights with white magic in this book (the scene that brought about this thread in fact) she is appalled at herself. Her companions are as well.

Covenant's theory that only the guilty have power (to redeem) would fall flat if he held your view and had no guilt over his actions.

Okay..just remember Shoe..you opened the thoughts by launching this thread..I'm taking full responsibility for what I post. Therefore, yes, there is danger here and I;m quite sure there is Plenty of Danger in store for Linden.
Be careful tho.." danger" in terms or in parameters of Good vs Evil suggests its on the side of evil..but "danger" becomes a wider concept when applied to Truth..an element of your existence may not be True to you..so holding on to it can be dangerous,,but its not Evil for another person to hold on to. A normal person's Vanity can be unbecoming but a woman or man who has all the attributes to be a " model" ,,all the talent and potential to fulfill themselves,,BE..well, Vanity is part of their success. There is the " sea change" from seeing everything in diametrically opposed perspective to a perspective of " magnificence " and " beauty" in AATE,,and..its not with out a " moral" and " ethical" foundation.

The formula being proposed has an element not yet discussed in this Thread yet is heavily suggested, in a way, by your use of the word..Messiah. Remember, you opened the door. The missing word implied is.." LOVE". How dangerous is LOVE? The higher standard of LOVE,,how dangerous is that? It all comes down to how LOVE is defined. Can LOVE even be defined? Is any puny attempt by mere upright apes at defining LOVE a dangerous act of hubris and thus folly? This concept of.. God so LOVED mankind that he sacrificed His own Son..can we even begin to grasp the infinite depth and breath of that..LOVE? Of course,,or maybe not..HOPE is tied to LOVE. Hope is of LOVE. Not re-defining, but Expanding and Exploring our understanding, our grasping of, our Truth,,of the infinite LOVE, is infused in the rising above the fray between Good vs Evil. Society's Monsters are with out LOVE. The small Hope of Love redeems the Monster of the Gap series for an example. okay 15 yd penalty for going outside the parameters of this thread, but i am talking more about the author's expansion of the concept of Hope and Love. imho..he continues in The Last Chrons.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

lurch wrote:I meant not to link the word positive,,to despair. I am not saying positive despair and negative despair in that sentence. Yet, you bring up an interesting perception.." positive despair"..This is what the author is getting at : there is good and evil . Its all rather subjective. So, rather than choose between them..for any Truth, any Standard,,mix the two diametrically opposed and find Your ( in this case Linden's) own Truth, own reality. So..despair exists and is a usual spiral down into a black hole of existence..but despair can be of Use if its realized and used,,as perhaps a motivator, or catalyst or agent to get one to a reality that rises above the fray between Good vs Evil....thanks!

I recall reading something about a Harlan Ellison short story in which a man from the "real" world is somehow transported to a fantasy realm, where he then performs the opposite of the hero role. He rapes the damsel in distress, betrays all the good guys, and then stabs the bad guy in the back like a coward instead of confronting him head on.

Is that what you mean by a personal Truth which transcends Good and Evil?

I haven't read the story..sooooo...alls I can observe is your words of it. The end result appears to be the point. Couching everything in terms of Good or Evil leaves the reader with a not so good taste . But liberating the character from the parameters of Good and Evil..perhaps the wonderment,,the magnificence of a "evolution to an end" can be realized leaving a totally different flavor to be enjoyed..then again..I haven't read the story.

lurch wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

lurch wrote:I meant not to link the word positive,,to despair. I am not saying positive despair and negative despair in that sentence. Yet, you bring up an interesting perception.." positive despair"..This is what the author is getting at : there is good and evil . Its all rather subjective. So, rather than choose between them..for any Truth, any Standard,,mix the two diametrically opposed and find Your ( in this case Linden's) own Truth, own reality. So..despair exists and is a usual spiral down into a black hole of existence..but despair can be of Use if its realized and used,,as perhaps a motivator, or catalyst or agent to get one to a reality that rises above the fray between Good vs Evil....thanks!

I recall reading something about a Harlan Ellison short story in which a man from the "real" world is somehow transported to a fantasy realm, where he then performs the opposite of the hero role. He rapes the damsel in distress, betrays all the good guys, and then stabs the bad guy in the back like a coward instead of confronting him head on.

Is that what you mean by a personal Truth which transcends Good and Evil?

I haven't read the story..sooooo...alls I can observe is your words of it. The end result appears to be the point. Couching everything in terms of Good or Evil leaves the reader with a not so good taste . But liberating the character from the parameters of Good and Evil..perhaps the wonderment,,the magnificence of a "evolution to an end" can be realized leaving a totally different flavor to be enjoyed..then again..I haven't read the story.

Sure, different flavor. But isn't the anti-Hile Troy of that Ellison story acting according to a Personal Truth which transcends Good and Evil?

The resulting guilt that comes from such compromises is the whip that goad them to transcend themselves.

Yes..guilt as a motivator is thru-out TCoTC. Right there in AATE is the old refrain ,,spoken by Joan..LEPER!!!...Of course , TC is More than a Leper. he is not contained inside the box of being a Leper. He goes Beyond the parameters set for being a Leper..So the subtle change in the Last Chrons is..or appears to me to being..from " guilt" as the motivator..to LOVE being the motivator. As I recall,,in the last couple of chapters of AATE..TC shrugs off the " guilt" of being the cause of Joan's condition,,and takes on the Responsibility of bringing an End to her totally negative state. He even gives her every chance..at his own peril..and finally taps the last iota of Love Joan may have still possessed..to get close enough to do the deed. An expansion of LOVE there,,at the cost of holding on to guilt..Terrible, terrible terrible circumstance..but magnificent in evolution from guilt to Love as motivator. ..imho.

[delete]

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

lurch wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: I recall reading something about a Harlan Ellison short story in which a man from the "real" world is somehow transported to a fantasy realm, where he then performs the opposite of the hero role. He rapes the damsel in distress, betrays all the good guys, and then stabs the bad guy in the back like a coward instead of confronting him head on.

Is that what you mean by a personal Truth which transcends Good and Evil?

I haven't read the story..sooooo...alls I can observe is your words of it. The end result appears to be the point. Couching everything in terms of Good or Evil leaves the reader with a not so good taste . But liberating the character from the parameters of Good and Evil..perhaps the wonderment,,the magnificence of a "evolution to an end" can be realized leaving a totally different flavor to be enjoyed..then again..I haven't read the story.

Sure, different flavor. But isn't the anti-Hile Troy of that Ellison story acting according to a Personal Truth which transcends Good and Evil?

I haven't read the story Worm..but I sure do like stories of " anti-heros". They are so " inside out" and upside down. Sure..transcending Good vs Evil to the Magnificence, the Beauty of Ones Truth.."Who Am I" has been put forth as a " convulsive" act. Let me ask you a question..this bad guy character of the story...how did you deal with the character? When he was killed,,how did that sit for you? On your own personal scales..weighing the anti heros " cowardice" against the bad guy's evilness..how did that come out?

OH! now I see you haven't read the story either..geeesh guy!!! Well then ..i stick to what I have posted as mere thought experiment.

lurch wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

lurch wrote: I haven't read the story..sooooo...alls I can observe is your words of it. The end result appears to be the point. Couching everything in terms of Good or Evil leaves the reader with a not so good taste . But liberating the character from the parameters of Good and Evil..perhaps the wonderment,,the magnificence of a "evolution to an end" can be realized leaving a totally different flavor to be enjoyed..then again..I haven't read the story.

Sure, different flavor. But isn't the anti-Hile Troy of that Ellison story acting according to a Personal Truth which transcends Good and Evil?

I haven't read the story Worm..but I sure do like stories of " anti-heros". They are so " inside out" and upside down. Sure..transcending Good vs Evil to the Magnificence, the Beauty of Ones Truth.."Who Am I" has been put forth as a " convulsive" act. Let me ask you a question..this bad guy character of the story...how did you deal with the character? When he was killed,,how did that sit for you? On your own personal scales..weighing the anti heros " cowardice" against the bad guy's evilness..how did that come out?

I haven't read the story, I have only outlined the essentials of it as they were outlined to me. I am not saying the main character is a bad guy [edit, or an anti-hero], the story already has one of those. It also has good guys, there is already a conflict, and a fair maiden in distress. So this regular guy - not a leper, not an author of best-sellers, let's say a construction worker - is somehow transported to a fantasy realm where he hooks up with the good guys on their quest. But on the way he betrays them, ravishes the fair maiden, and cowardishly stabs the bad guy in the back instead of confronting him head on.

The construction worker represents something beyond Good and Evil because in this story he is not part of either side. Why can't we therefore say that he is pursuing his own version of a Personal Truth?

Edit - I see you're trying to turn the question back on me. No fair! I asked first. I just wanted your take on Personal Truth in the context of the Ellison short story which neither of us have read. (I'm actually looking around for it now, with no title to go on, makes it difficult.)