Kevin's Watch

MOD EDIT: There's, like, a gazillion Malazan spoilers in this thread. Read at your own risk.


Being a Thomas Covenant website, the comparison is bound to come It also helps me to view the difference between the two when we see the comparisons. First, what seems to be the same:
-They were both alien to the world in which they reside
-They both hate whomever imprisoned them
-They both seem to rely on convoluted plans to achieve their desires.

Now, more importantly, the differences:
-Foul is obsessed with perfection, the Crippled God with imperfections (which could have to do with how they view themselves)
-The Crippled God seems to possess some power beyond those gained in manipulating others. Foul doesn't seem to possess this attribute.
-Foul seems determined to convince his opponents that moving against him is futile, that all actions against him would be turned against his opponents. The Crippled God doesn't seem to care. There seems to be a couple times

Spoiler

(MoI comes to mind)

where the Crippled God is "foiled", however, as of MT, anyways, he doesn't seem to dwell on it, or acknowledge it, or try to turn it against his opponents. Ultimately, it seems as if the Crippled God is much more subtle than Foul.
-Foul's purpose is very clear. I still don't know what the hell the Crippled God is shooting for.

In conclusion, both are nasty characters, but the Crippled God seems a bit more.... unsettling...

Orlion wrote: -The Crippled God seems to possess some power beyond those gained in manipulating others. Foul doesn't seem to possess this attribute.

I disagree. Foul has his own power independent of others. In TPTP When Covenant ended Foul's access to the Illearth Stone he continued resisting using his own power for a time.

Also, in WGW once he had blasted Covenant's shade and expended all the wild magic he had called up, he began to use his own power and expended it as well, this is why he eventually faded. He wouldn't fail if he were only using the ring's power.

Orlion wrote: -Foul's purpose is very clear. I still don't know what the hell the Crippled God is shooting for.

I assumed he wants revenge on those who summoned him. The perverting/warping and wrecking of the universe he's summoned to.

They "ruined" him, in some way he's incompatible with the universe he's been dragged into. He himself has been "crippled" and perverted, he can't ever regain his form/function. He is twisted, warped, altered, and it's permanent. Thus his anger and thirst for revenge.

Orlion wrote:In conclusion, both are nasty characters, but the Crippled God seems a bit more.... unsettling...

Foul is the essence of cold, calculating sanity. Everything he does is reasonable from his point of view.

The CG is thoroughly insane.

The reason he seems so unsettling is for this reason, in my opinion.

Imagine you are interviewing a brutal murderer on death row. You ask him why he did it and he says "because I wanted him dead." Chilling, but... imagine you ask and the murderer says "I have no idea." or, even worse, he just starts laughing or gibbering maniacally.

Which one is more unsettling?

Hey, Horrim! Sorry I didn't respond sooner, it's been busy as hell over here and I forgot.

But I think you're spot on as to why I find the Crippled God more unsettling than Foul... at least with Foul I always know he's trying to break down the Arch. With the big CG, however... he doesn't seem to care if his original goals are foiled...

To me the crucial difference is that the Crippled God was a victim.

Foul thought he was a victim too.

--A

Mr. Broken wrote:To me the crucial difference is that the Crippled God was a victim.

Avatar wrote:Foul thought he was a victim too.

--A

the crippled god was a victim. his perception is not in anyway fallacious.
whereas, foul's thinking is skewed toward the power of victimhood.
the crippled god is not hungry, he's in pain.

lucimay wrote:

Mr. Broken wrote:To me the crucial difference is that the Crippled God was a victim.

Avatar wrote:Foul thought he was a victim too.

--A

the crippled god was a victim. his perception is not in anyway fallacious.
whereas, foul's thinking is skewed toward the power of victimhood.
the crippled god is not hungry, he's in pain.

... because he's a fan of the Cleveland Browns. ( sorry I couldnt resist.)

Mr. Broken wrote:

lucimay wrote: the crippled god is not hungry, he's in pain.

... because he's a fan of the Cleveland Browns. ( sorry I couldnt resist.)

lucimay wrote:the crippled god was a victim. his perception is not in anyway fallacious.
whereas, foul's thinking is skewed toward the power of victimhood.
the crippled god is not hungry, he's in pain.

But it doesn't depend on the truth of the perception. Both saw themselves as victims. If you do something bad because you are a victim, or because you see yourself as one, the bad thing still gets done, right?

--A

Avatar wrote:

lucimay wrote:the crippled god was a victim. his perception is not in anyway fallacious.
whereas, foul's thinking is skewed toward the power of victimhood.
the crippled god is not hungry, he's in pain.

But it doesn't depend on the truth of the perception. Both saw themselves as victims. If you do something bad because you are a victim, or because you see yourself as one, the bad thing still gets done, right?

--A

Yeah, all we know is that both Foul and Kaminsod were imprisoned against their will on a world they didn't belong in. It turned them both sour and they despised the inhabitants as a result. I mean, we don't know much about Kaminsod before he became chained... just that he was fleeing from something...

Pertaining to the end of the story:

Spoiler

What about the halting of the Jade Strangers? Isn't that an act of compassion (not of Tavore's calibre, but still) that someone like Foul would be unable of? Or can it be read as that Kaminsod isn't yet ready to handle all those voices and is just as happy to turn them away...? To me it seemed he had an opportunity to end and reshape the world, but chose not to.

Did the Crippled God really do anything bad? He was alien to the world, and as a result his influence on it was automatically corrupting, poisonous, but can he be blamed for that?

And of course you must consider that gods in Malaz are shaped by how they're perceived - those who joined him or sought to use him for their own purposes saw him in a certain way and so caused his works to take on that aspect.

With the risk of going a bit off-topic here: in DoD, when the weird stuff happens to Sweetest Sufferance in the Wastelands (trying to stay away from clear spoiler territory here), Precious Thimble (or someone else?) says something along the lines of "he comes from a world where every god is a shield anvil". Maybe this is a part of his alienness and why his mere presence is corrupting, especially with him being chained, crippled, chopped into pieces and all. Just speculating.

Murrin wrote:Did the Crippled God really do anything bad? He was alien to the world, and as a result his influence on it was automatically corrupting, poisonous, but can he be blamed for that?

And of course you must consider that gods in Malaz are shaped by how they're perceived - those who joined him or sought to use him for their own purposes saw him in a certain way and so caused his works to take on that aspect.

exactly. ^^^ what he said ^^^
glad i waited to reply because you murrin always take WAY fewer words to articulate a point than it takes me! lol!!



i'm not sure he percieved himself to be a victim so much as he percieved himself to be a crippled prisoner (which he WAS) and was attempting to free himself by any means necessary.
in the end he wanted to give back to those who had selflessly defended him
by telling their story truthfully, including all HIS OWN acts. right?

that's not Foul. not even close. Foul is pure dispite. malice - rancor - contempt - disdain - scorn.

in fact, now that i think on it, they're not even close to comparable.
a better comparison would be Kallor and Lord Foul!

Kallor would call Foul a sissy , and slap him in the mouth.

Mr. Broken wrote:Kallor would call Foul a sissy , and slap him in the mouth.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

TOTALLY!!!!



and at the risk of major wrath i have to say, i've always seen the land and everyone in it, foul, mhoram, the haruchai, esmer, all of em, all allegorical.
foul is disease. the disease of despite.
(maybe tolkien wasn't allegorical but donaldson definitely is.)

there is no allegory in erikson. metaphor maybe but no allegory. it's not a symbolic world by any stretch. it's erikson and esslemont depicting what they know best, anthropology and archeology, societies and the degradation of them. because they all do, right? all societies degrade.

anyway that's the way i see both stories and so comparing TCG and LF is like apples and oranges. they're both fruits, yes, but they're not really comparable any other way.

Murrin wrote:Did the Crippled God really do anything bad?

In a word, yes. Giving Rhulad that sword was very bad.

Agreed.

And what about the Pannion Domin (Pretty sure I spelt that wrong. )

Murrin wrote:And of course you must consider that gods in Malaz are shaped by how they're perceived - those who joined him or sought to use him for their own purposes saw him in a certain way and so caused his works to take on that aspect.

Now that is (to me) a better argument. Although that doesn't necessarily have to affect the god...Mael didn't himself turn "bad" just because Mallik Rel was using his power for "wrong."

As for the other...if he hadn't been chained or crippled, what would have happened? Was there a reason other than his alienness that he was bound?

--A

Avatar wrote:Agreed.

And what about the Pannion Domin (Pretty sure I spelt that wrong. )

Murrin wrote:And of course you must consider that gods in Malaz are shaped by how they're perceived - those who joined him or sought to use him for their own purposes saw him in a certain way and so caused his works to take on that aspect.

Now that is (to me) a better argument. Although that doesn't necessarily have to affect the god...Mael didn't himself turn "bad" just because Mallik Rel was using his power for "wrong."

As for the other...if he hadn't been chained or crippled, what would have happened? Was there a reason other than his alienness that he was bound?

--A

(Not sure where to draw the line so spoil this if neccessary)
Think of the Crippled God as a kidnap victim.
Forcefully taken from where he belonged, subjected to flaming dismemberment, then imprisoned for eternity in a constant state of agony. I think it is safe to say that would warp anyones perspective. Then add to that the fact, that whenever he begins to slip his chains, the locals gang up on him, secure his bindings, and engage in a little immortal cannibalism. As for the Pannion Seer, well one shouldnt forget that he was also a victim who felt justified in what he was doing, this made him easy pickings for the victim god. Rhulad was simply a means to an end , the intended result was to draw Kaminsod's true ( if unwilling ) champion into the fray, and send the Pantheon into panic mode. Rhulads own ego baited the trap, and in the end Rhulad ( owner of slaves ), found out what it was like to be one. A costly lesson to both the Tiste Edur, and the Letheri. Harsh to the extreme, but evil?

And wasn't the sword initially intended for Hannan Mosag, who seems much more like a "bad guy" than Rhulad? Possibly, he was aiming to become a very willing champion and use that cause for his own ends.