AATE Related GI questions and answers

[thewormoftheworld'send]

"Amok." said Elena.
And he appeared.

Because he wanted to.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKnowYourTrueName
"A true name perfectly describes something's essential nature; knowing a true name gives one power over the owner of the name."

This trope is used a few times throughout the Chrons, particularly with the Insequent. But instead of giving one power over the person named, in this case the person named gains power over herself when SHE regains her memory of who she really is.

Foamfollower :

There is power in names. I do not wish to be invoked by any but friends.

Emotional power, not magical power, in this case.

[Jadawin24]

hello all, I am really pleased that I got an answer to a long question I asked Mr. donaldson on Gradual interview. You will find it in apr listings with a spoiler warning. I had made a thread a while back on the topic. Though his answer is closed ended, to mine, I think there is a chance that he might be concealing a bit of plot, as it is a spoiler. you can form your on thoughts. I am really knocked out though I did get an answer. it was honestly most kind of him, and I did not expect one, given how long it was. It is a mark of an author who will take the time to discuss things with his readers like he does. Life is kind of uncertain for me atm.. so I hope I am here when the final book comes out. Which is when please.

thanks..

chris

[dlbpharmd]

Which is when please.

2013, probably in the Fall.

[dlbpharmd]

Reed Byers: Steve:

You recently said: "I'm stunned that anyone thinks the Elohim were imprisoned by Jeremiah's construct. So stunned, in fact, that I've re-read the passage several times; and I simply don't see how you arrived at that conclusion."

Wow. OK, well, count me among the ones who drew the wrong conclusion...

Infelice: "The boy will ensnare us. He will deprive us of life and meaning and hope."

Linden recalls: Your kid makes doors. Doors through time. Door between realities. And doors that don't go anywhere. Prisons. When you walk into them, you never come out.

After a bit, Linden asks: "I was about to ask you why getting caught by one of his doors is worse than being eaten by the Worm. [...] Why is a prison worse than dying?"

Infelice: "The prison which the boy will devise is eternal helplessness, fully cognizant and forever futile. It will outlive the ending of suns and stars."

Infelice is determined to stop Jeremiah from building his bone-construct (made from bones of creatures who warred upon the Elohim).

When Jeremiah is about to complete his construct: "Gales of rage and terror hammered at the portal; at Jeremiah. The sheer desperation of the Elohim staggered him. [...] Infelice began to shriek like a banshee".

When he DOES complete it, his mind (which has been "locked away" for so long) returns, and Infelice "disappeared again, still shrieking".

I guess the word "again" there at the end hints that this is like her previous disappearances, but everything else I quote above sure makes it sound like Infelice is now where Jeremiah's mind used to be...

Infelice is worried about Jeremiah building a prison, and is frantically trying to stop him from building THIS. I guess in retrospect, she's worried that retrieving his mind will ENABLE him to build a prison -- but I really thought we'd heard the end of THIS elohim, and possibly all of them...

OK. I do see your point. But look at the situation from a slightly different perspective. Have I *ever* been the kind of writer who would make something that important happen without nailing it down so that it could not be mistaken for anything else? In other contexts, I've insisted on the importance of "clarity" (at least as I define it). Imprisoning the Elohim is simply too huge to be left ambiguous (I mean ambiguous as to who did what to whom, not as to meaning).

(05/15/2011)

Stuff like this must drive SRD crazy!

[dlbpharmd]

Angela Davis: Hello Stephen,

I’ve just finished AATE. Thank you. It was fantastic, intense, wonderful, as all your stories are, and so satisfying.

I’ve read and re-read all your published work many times over the past 30 years, and I already know that you write women incredibly well. This has been discussed before in the GI, I seem to remember, but in AATE you take it to a whole new level with ‘She Who Must Not Be Named’, with Linden so precariously teetering over the edge for most of the book, and poor, poor Joan (I cried at that scene near the end when she opened her arms to the Ranhyn – thank you for giving her that poignant moment of joy).

What struck me in this book perhaps more than in the others, was your understanding of the particular combination of rage/pain/grief, the substantially unexpressed capacity for the extreme that I have always believed to be a particularly female response to being wronged or betrayed (but perhaps men do feel this way too?). I felt such sympathy for SWMNBN, this sentient extrapolation of all that pain, and you treated her so sensitively and empathetically. That she responded to TC’s attempt to reach her with reason gives me reason to believe there may be hope for her, but I’m happy to wait and see!

Once again Linden leaves me speechless. She’s staring down the barrel of ultimate despair again and again, yet she still manages to pull herself up to face the next onslaught, and she’s so believable.

Did you undertake any specific research into the female psyche for these chronicles, or are your writing from insights you’ve gained over the years through your own interactions with female friends and family, or maybe your own inherent empathy?

Thank you again for always delivering such pleasurable, powerful reading experiences.
Best wishes
Angela Davis

I'm posting this, at least in part, as a response-by-proxy to The Holy Order of Linden Avery Haters. <grin> And of course I find your reaction very gratifying. Thank you!

Alas, I'll have to file my response under "spoilers." Just in case. Although most of what follows belongs under "personal topics."

As to writing about women: this is only one of many subjects on which I wish I could explain (or even understand <sigh>) how I do what I do. But I will offer a few observations. 1) Someone (I think it was Doris Lessing) said it is the task--or perhaps the responsibility--of the imagination to accept no limits. I do that to the best of my abilities. And toward that end 2) empathy seems to me to be absolutely essential. Writers with my aspirations have to be able to get outside their own heads. 3) If you accept the notion that every personality is a mixture of "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics, then you'll understand when I say that I've always been responsive to my feminine side. And 4) I was raised in a house full of sisters, with an unapproachable father and--what shall I call her?--a ubiquitous mother. Which probably explains 3).

(05/24/2011)

[dlbpharmd]

Peter Bremer: At the end of AATE, are Covenant, Branl and Clyme back in their normal time or did the caesure take them to another point? The text would seem to suggest the latter, but I'm not sure.

"Wild magic and and Joan's death had removed them from the caesure before the Arch healed itself, locking them out of their proper time forever."

I'm not asking for spoilers, of course. Just wondering if I'm missing something obvious. Perhaps a bit of obfuscation on your part is intentional.

<sigh> Here's a perfect example of why it pays to be humble. I'm reminded of a quote that one of my grad school professors posted in his office: "I realize that you believe you understand what you think I said, but what you fail to grasp is that what you heard is not what I meant." Or words to that effect. Well, it simply never occurred to me that the sentence you quote could be misread. What I meant (using more words) is something like this: Covenant, Branl, and Clyme *have* to be removed from the caesure before the Arch heals itself--because once the Arch does heal itself, they would be locked out of their proper time forever. Fortunately, they *were* removed before it was too late, so in fact they *do* end up in their proper time.

Alas, *I* knew what I meant, so I never considered possible misreadings.

(05/30/2011)

[dlbpharmd]

Jeremy: Finished AATE last night. I am frustrated by Covenant's refusal to use *his* ring. He *is* the white gold. If he is the rightful wielder, and since this is his chronicles (not Linden's), it would be nice if the rightful wielder would put that ring on and crush some of those enemies. I love Linden, but I miss the good ol' Covenant. Covenant is the hero, not Linden or Jeremiah or whoever. I just want to yell "Put away the Krill and take up the ring already!". It's hypocritical to swear away power, yet he takes the Krill with him...?

Tsk tsk. First, Covenant admits freely that he's already broken his vow to not use power again. What else was he doing in the Arch of Time, if not using/being power? Second, you're asking me to break the rules I've set up for How Things Work in my fantasy world. That ring is no longer Covenant's because he gave it away. So now you want me to decide that that whole theme is meaningless? Thereby invalidating significant portions of what has gone before? I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

(05/30/2011)

[High Lord Tolkien]

Peter Bremer: At the end of AATE, are Covenant, Branl and Clyme back in their normal time or did the caesure take them to another point? The text would seem to suggest the latter, but I'm not sure.

"Wild magic and and Joan's death had removed them from the caesure before the Arch healed itself, locking them out of their proper time forever."

I'm not asking for spoilers, of course. Just wondering if I'm missing something obvious. Perhaps a bit of obfuscation on your part is intentional.

<sigh> Here's a perfect example of why it pays to be humble. I'm reminded of a quote that one of my grad school professors posted in his office: "I realize that you believe you understand what you think I said, but what you fail to grasp is that what you heard is not what I meant." Or words to that effect. Well, it simply never occurred to me that the sentence you quote could be misread. What I meant (using more words) is something like this: Covenant, Branl, and Clyme *have* to be removed from the caesure before the Arch heals itself--because once the Arch does heal itself, they would be locked out of their proper time forever. Fortunately, they *were* removed before it was too late, so in fact they *do* end up in their proper time.

Alas, *I* knew what I meant, so I never considered possible misreadings.

(05/30/2011)

That's good.
It really does read both ways.
I guess Steven "hears" the pause of that last comma more than I did.

[dlbpharmd]

Charles W. Adams: I'm in progress of reading AATE for the second time, to catch things I missed in my initial enthusiasm to read rapidly.

In another post, you stated that mentioning the name of She Who Must Not Be Named would have serious consequences, "comparible to shattering the arch...". I don't recall reading anything that indicated what would prevent Foul or a minion of passing that name on to her. I infer that some other force within the world would prevent such (as the Elohim get involved when required, and block Foul when necessary, such as is efforts to access The One Tree), or they don't know her name. But that's really speculation beyond the text.

If willing to answer: What keeps Foul or minion from whispering her name into SWMNBN ear?

I don't really want to answer this question. It feels a bit like trying to quantify something which by its very nature should be unquantifiable. But I'll offer a few possibilities, none of which are explicit in the text. a) I could argue that LF hasn't had *access" to SWMNBN until now. Remember, he couldn't simply use the Illearth Stone whenever he wanted power. The Cavewights had to dig it up for him first. In addition, there are the wards created by the Viles to consider. b) LF may not actually *know* SWMNBN's true name. They are, after all, entirely different--and in some ways antithetical--entities. And Despite is inherently limited in its ability to "know" certain kinds of things. LF would scoff at the very idea--and yet he keeps getting defeated. c) LF may be concerned that he would be damaged in the resulting cataclysm. SWMNBN ain't exactly his *friend*, ya'know. Would *you* want to set free a cosmic entity who was only imprisoned because you betrayed her?

(06/01/2011)

[dlbpharmd]

Ron Houck: Are Diassomer Mininderain and She Who Must Not Be Named one in the same, or is Diassomer Mininderain just a legend that arose from the existence of the being that would become She Who Must Not Be Named? Will we find out who She really is (Her true name, as Esmer was loathe to reveal) in the final novel of The Last Chronicles?

A complex question. The issue (I believe) is one which profits by being ill-defined. In situations like this one--at least for me--more explicit explanations produce less resonance. Sometimes explanations limit meaning. So what is the relationship between Mininderain and SWMNBN? My answer is: all of the above. Plus the possibility that Mininderain once actually existed as a separate being. As for SWMNBN, I have no intention of saying anything about her "true name" here.

(07/06/2011)

[dlbpharmd]

Grant Metts: Mr. Donaldson,

I love your books, they're all amazing and they've meant so much to me throughout my life. Thank you so much.


My (spoiler!) question is about Covenant's oath to the Ranyhyn that he will not ride. Back in the first Chronicles, he declines to ride them because he can sense their fear and loathing of him. (This is Covenant the lonely, depressed, powerless rapist, so we understand their disgust.) Then in the second Chronicles, after he's burned in the Banefire, he swears he'll never use power again. (This is Covenant the man who has already seen Foul defeated once, who witnessed Brinn's victory at the Isle of the One Tree, a Covenant who's already decided to surrender his ring to the Despiser.)

Throughout the Final Chronicles up until this point, we've seen people be forced by exigency to reexamine their commitments in a way that could be termed oathbreaking. Starting with the Ramen, who similarly do not ride (and esteem Covenant for refraining as well), who have to ride the Ranyhyn in order to accompany Linden on her trials. At first, it's clear: they have to ride because there's no other way for them to follow through the caesure. But, later, they're content to make use of the Ranyhyn for mere transportation, even when alternatives would plausibly be available, because the Ranyhyn don't seem to mind being ridden. So that's one commitment broken.

When Roger reappears in Covenant's form, he "asks" Linden for the ring. When she asks him about his promise not to use power, he retorts, "That was then. This is now." Of course, that's just Roger; he's just saying what he has to say to decieve Linden. Except that Covenant seems to agree; while he doesn't seem interested in reclaiming his ring, it's his idea to take the krill (and thus endanger Andelain). It's his idea to use the krill as a way of checking the croyel. And it's his idea to wield the krill against Joan--ultimately, of course, he kills her with it (which in and of itself signifies a fundamental change in Covenant, since he's never before had to defend the Earth by stabbing people who threaten it--although of course one could easily argue that executing Joan was in some sense an act of mercy). So that's another commitment broken.

Of course, the Haruchai's Mastery is repeatedly mocked in the narrative of the story. The conclusion of the narrative seems clear; everyone is telling them that they need to abandon that particular commitment. And, of course, their understandable desire to refuse healing--to bear the entire consequence of their commitments--is openly and repeatedly condemned and derided by pretty much everyone. We, as the reader, are encouranged to view this as foolish; even though in some ways it is noble, it's clear that the urgency of the Worm should trump such concerns, and the Haruchai are seen as fools for not realizing this. (I wonder whether we'll get to see exactly how Pahni and Bhapa convince them, or if it'll just happen off-screen...) Stave is himself a walking broken commitment, as well.

My question is, if so many other commitments have to be discarded or transformed, how come Covenant gets to keep his quaint little promise to not ride the Ranyhyn? That promise may not even be relevant anymore--the Ranyhyn haven't expressed any revulsion or fear towards him yet since his resurrection, and he clearly isn't the same man who once raped Lena. Moreover that promise has already cost a lot, and will probably keep costing more. He basically rode the Harrow's destrier to death three times--each time using unnatural means to rejuvenate it--until it finally perished of utter exhaustion, whilst under the influence of the Feroce's mind-altering magic. Then, when he has to escape the tsunami after executing Joan, the Haruchai tell him to ride (just has he once told them to let Linden heal them). He refuses, so they pick him up and perform an improbable, superhuman feat of skill so that he can preserve his obsolete little promise. (For any other horses, or any other riders, that feat would have been flat-out impossible. Yet the Ranyhyn and Haruchai manage it without apparent difficulty.) If those two Ranyhyn are indeed dead, it's credible to suppose that they were slowed down by their impossible efforts to support Covenant's promise, meaning that it's possible his promise cost the lives of two of the Ranyhyn he was supposedly honoring by refusing to ride them. (Doubtlessly he'll need to make use of the Insequent's old horse now. I wonder if ol' Mishio Massima will make it to the end of the next book? Somehow, I doubt it.)

So, what makes this particuar promise special or important enough to allow it to remain when all other commitments are being sundered or swept aside by the Worm's coming?

I procrastinate about questions like yours because I don't know how to answer them. Everything is so clear to *me*....

The Ramen are not germane to the issue you raise. *They* have not changed any of their commitments. The change was imposed on them by the Ranyhyn. People who "serve" as the Ramen do can't suddenly refuse to serve just because they're asked to perform an additional service. This is important for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the Ranyhyn aren't ordinary horses: they are consciously trying to Save The World. (And as a side note: I can't think of a situation in which the Ramen use the Ranyhyn as mere transportation when other plausible means of travel are available. Sure, they move slowly for a while: Mahrtiir could walk. But that argument assumes he has some way of knowing if/when circumstances might change.)

As for the issue of Covenant and power, I don't see how it applies. Roger's answer to Linden ("That was then. This is now.") may be glib, but it implies a profound truth. Circumstances change. People change. Necessities change. The Covenant who swore off power is not the same Covenant who spent 3500 years doing nothing but use power as part of the Arch of Time. It would be, well, disingenuous of him to claim *now* that he hasn't already set aside that specific commitment.

The Ranyhyn (and Covenant's promise to them) are an entirely different kind of issue. For one thing, as I've already suggested, *everything* hinges on them (as it does on quite a few of the other characters as well). The opinions of the Humbled are meaningless here. How eager would *you* be to break a promise to the only beings who know where you need to go and can get you there? And for another, it's clear (at least to me) that the Ranyhyn *want* Covenant to keep his promise. (Perhaps they still fear him. Perhaps they have some other end in view. Testing his "worthiness"?) Why else does no Ranyhyn *offer* to bear him? Why do they choose the Harrow's destrier for him, instead of simply insisting that his old promise no longer matters?

I suppose my point is that you're focusing on Covenant's choices; but the choices of the Ranyhyn are equally important. He doesn't "keep his quaint little promise" (tsk tsk) in a vacuum.

In any case, the "Chronicles" have always been about "hope in contradiction." It makes perfect sense to me that Covenant breaks some promises and keeps others.

(07/06/2011)

[Orlion]

Behold! The following:

Kevin (Wayfriend): Dear Mr. Donaldson,

Thank you for writing your stories, especially the Chronicles. They are worthy of the time spent in understanding them more completely. And thank you for answering questions in the Gradual Interview. For insights into the author cannot help but provide insights into his stories. I wish you good fortune, and a simplified life.

Forgive me for taking advantage of your generosity one last time: Earlier in the GI, you had written "The term, She Who Must Not Be Named, is *necessary* in my story." Can you elaborate on this necessity?





There's at least one perfectly good reason why She Who Must Not Be Named must not be named. If anyone ever does anything that restores her name to her, the resulting explosion could well destroy the Arch of Time. She is, after all, a being who belongs outside Time. Her essential nature is too *big* for temporal reality, with all of reality's laws and restrictions. Forgetting who she is is the only thing that keeps her contained.

(08/07/2011)

So if the Worm isn't enough...

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Behold! The following:

Kevin (Wayfriend): Dear Mr. Donaldson,

Thank you for writing your stories, especially the Chronicles. They are worthy of the time spent in understanding them more completely. And thank you for answering questions in the Gradual Interview. For insights into the author cannot help but provide insights into his stories. I wish you good fortune, and a simplified life.

Forgive me for taking advantage of your generosity one last time: Earlier in the GI, you had written "The term, She Who Must Not Be Named, is *necessary* in my story." Can you elaborate on this necessity?





There's at least one perfectly good reason why She Who Must Not Be Named must not be named. If anyone ever does anything that restores her name to her, the resulting explosion could well destroy the Arch of Time. She is, after all, a being who belongs outside Time. Her essential nature is too *big* for temporal reality, with all of reality's laws and restrictions. Forgetting who she is is the only thing that keeps her contained.

(08/07/2011)

So if the Worm isn't enough...

The Worm is a being from within the Arch. It cannot break free of the Arch. There always had to be more, either a white gold ring or something else...

[Vraith]

The Worm is a being from within the Arch. It cannot break free of the Arch. There always had to be more, either a white gold ring or something else...

Not necessarily [though I always thought so...and still think it's a quandary].
There is the statement that once the Worm eats enough earthpower it will shatter the Arch [Anele, IIRC].
But there's the contradiction that it can only be broken by one "consumed by rage, contemptuous of consequences" That one COULD be SHE, but there are other possibilities...and it's all speculative. And there are a number of paths I see out of the dilemma/conflict...but the one I favor is this: Naming SHE as things stand, b-bye everything. BUT influencing/teaching/awakening in such a way that SHE is on the path to her original nature/personality first...so SHE recovers/remembers her name through process, instead of being slapped in the face with it...completely different, with much greater positive potential.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

The Worm is a being from within the Arch. It cannot break free of the Arch. There always had to be more, either a white gold ring or something else...

Not necessarily [though I always thought so...and still think it's a quandary].
There is the statement that once the Worm eats enough earthpower it will shatter the Arch [Anele, IIRC].

Yes. Crazy enough as it sounds, Anele did say that about consuming the EarthBlood. Imagine that, a creation within the Arch becoming Earthpowerful enough to destroy the Arch.

But there's the contradiction that it can only be broken by one "consumed by rage, contemptuous of consequences" That one COULD be SHE, but there are other possibilities...and it's all speculative. And there are a number of paths I see out of the dilemma/conflict...but the one I favor is this: Naming SHE as things stand, b-bye everything. BUT influencing/teaching/awakening in such a way that SHE is on the path to her original nature/personality first...so SHE recovers/remembers her name through process, instead of being slapped in the face with it...completely different, with much greater positive potential.

Don't stop there. The next step is that SHE destroys the Arch anyway to escape the prison of Time. I don't see what rage has to do with it. And anyway, I think the one "consumed by rage, contemptuous of consequences" is Kasty.

[Orlion]

We're making the assumption that the Worm is native to the 'Earth'. It could be that the Worm is an Eternal like Foul, SHE, and the Creator. Which kinda makes since, each one has 'specific' ways in which it can destroy the Arch. The Creator for 'interfering directly', Foul by having someone else do it, SHE by remembering who she is, and the Worm by devouring all life. In fact, if there is any truth to one of the cosmological myths (and Covenant says they are/contain truth) then the Worm was originally outside of creation.

[Vraith]

Don't stop there. The next step is that SHE destroys the Arch anyway to escape the prison of Time. I don't see what rage has to do with it. And anyway, I think the one "consumed by rage, contemptuous of consequences" is Kasty.

Oh, my supertheory ends up with SHE free of time [and sane]...in fact it ends up with all the beings/powers separated out...things that belong in time in time, things that don't not. Some pieces of it are scattered around the Watch, most just in my brain...maybe someday I'll assemble the whole thing and post it...but probably not. If I did I suspect it would be the single longest post ever submitted [heh...unless there is a maximum size and it had to be broken up...I don't know about that].

[Zarathustra]

Peter Bremer: At the end of AATE, are Covenant, Branl and Clyme back in their normal time or did the caesure take them to another point? The text would seem to suggest the latter, but I'm not sure.

"Wild magic and and Joan's death had removed them from the caesure before the Arch healed itself, locking them out of their proper time forever."

I'm not asking for spoilers, of course. Just wondering if I'm missing something obvious. Perhaps a bit of obfuscation on your part is intentional.

<sigh> Here's a perfect example of why it pays to be humble. I'm reminded of a quote that one of my grad school professors posted in his office: "I realize that you believe you understand what you think I said, but what you fail to grasp is that what you heard is not what I meant." Or words to that effect. Well, it simply never occurred to me that the sentence you quote could be misread. What I meant (using more words) is something like this: Covenant, Branl, and Clyme *have* to be removed from the caesure before the Arch heals itself--because once the Arch does heal itself, they would be locked out of their proper time forever. Fortunately, they *were* removed before it was too late, so in fact they *do* end up in their proper time.

Alas, *I* knew what I meant, so I never considered possible misreadings.

(05/30/2011)

That's good.
It really does read both ways.
I guess Steven "hears" the pause of that last comma more than I did.

I don't think it's an issue of a pause. I think he's humbled because he realizes he should have said, "... had removed them from the caesure before the Arch healed itself and locked them out of their proper time forever." Wouldn't that be clearer?