Kevin's Watch

I'm recalling Donaldson's childhood spent in India which has a caste society. I don't think it's been pointed out here that Covenant's leprosy ("don't touch me") converts him into an Untouchable, the lowest of all castes. But equally as important, there is also a high caste that consists of Untouchables: the Brahmin caste. So Donaldson has created a character that encompasses all levels of Indian society. This he manages to tie in with his Christian background, as this religion supports the lower classes against the higher (Jesus dining with lepers), thus seemingly elevating the lower to a higher stature.

Can you elaborate a little furthur on the second part of your observation WOTWE. I stuggle to see Covenant as much of an egalitarian in the sense that as soon as he enters the Land he gravitates(?) immediately to the top echelons of the Lands society and from thereon in has very little to do with the 'common man' exept to be served meals or given shelter by him now and again. When he returns to the Land he automatically assumes his right to command other peoples lives and to be the arbiter of their destiny - perhaps all to the good, but in no sense democratic.

I think that is exactly the point, peter. TC is both the lowest of the low and the highest of the high, depending on where he's at (or specifically, the frame of reference). Kinda like how the king of Jordan is the highest of authorities in Jordan but would only be tolerated in the US (granted, this example doesn't run the entire social gambit like the Untouchables does, but I'm grasping at straws here! )

Actually Worm, being a Dalit is technically not the lowest of all castes, it is actually an exclusion from that entire society..

But I honestly see very little in the Chronicles that relates to one group of people (say haruchai, or stonedownors, or giants) being inherently superior to any other group.
However, now I think about it, the skest and the Elohim - as well as Demondim, Ravers and the Render - are kinda 'untouchable' to a degree in their own way..

Does the 'untouchable' idea founder on the fact that in India one group is untouchable out of reverence, the other out of disgust.

re your second point Ninjaboy, the Land is not so much divided in terms of a racial (if you can call it that) sense, but it is inherently hierarchical in that there is a definit progression of levels of superiority from within even the village level up to the Council of Lords at Revelstone.

Orlion wrote:I think that is exactly the point, peter. TC is both the lowest of the low and the highest of the high, depending on where he's at (or specifically, the frame of reference). Kinda like how the king of Jordan is the highest of authorities in Jordan but would only be tolerated in the US (granted, this example doesn't run the entire social gambit like the Untouchables does, but I'm grasping at straws here! )

Thank you Orlion, I didn't have time to respond to that post. Even though I've often argued that the Chrons is secular Christianity with a mixture of Eastern esoterica, in some ways Covenant himself is a mingling of East and West.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Orlion wrote:I think that is exactly the point, peter. TC is both the lowest of the low and the highest of the high, depending on where he's at (or specifically, the frame of reference). Kinda like how the king of Jordan is the highest of authorities in Jordan but would only be tolerated in the US (granted, this example doesn't run the entire social gambit like the Untouchables does, but I'm grasping at straws here! )

Thank you Orlion, I didn't have time to respond to that post. Even though I've often argued that the Chrons is secular Christianity with a mixture of Eastern esoterica, in some ways Covenant himself is a mingling of East and West.

Well...it at least engages in a dialogue/argument with those.
Here's a something to ponder though on the class/leper/untouchable thing: in the "real" world, TC is leper/untouchable-low, but fights against society casting him out completely.
In the Land, invert. It's peoples try to include him, but daren't judge him [untouchable-high], while he tries to outcast himself.
In BOTH worlds, his actions cause some people to bridge/address the different attitudes.

peter wrote:Does the 'untouchable' idea founder on the fact that in India one group is untouchable out of reverence, the other out of disgust.

re your second point Ninjaboy, the Land is not so much divided in terms of a racial (if you can call it that) sense, but it is inherently hierarchical in that there is a definit progression of levels of superiority from within even the village level up to the Council of Lords at Revelstone.

I disagree.. In the Land, there are vastly distinctive peoples who play different roles. That is at it must be - not every human there can be the High Lord, and not every human can be a warrior. The roles each individual plays is honoured and respected, whatever that position is. And every voice is heard. Some have the responsibility of heavier burdens than others, and they are respected for that, but are not treated an inherently superior to anyone else.
And critically - a point which debunks any 'caste system' speculation - is that ANY villager from any part of the land can aspire and attain any role in society. There are no classes of villagers banned from attending the Loresraat, or trying their hand at any other role.

Both Vraith and Ninjaboy make good points above but I struggle a little with the idea that Donaldson uses an amalgum of different belief systems to come up with his version of 'faith' within the Land. An interesting question on these lines might be 'If the people of the Land were denizens of our wourld of what faith would they be.

peter wrote:Both Vraith and Ninjaboy make good points above but I struggle a little with the idea that Donaldson uses an amalgum of different belief systems to come up with his version of 'faith' within the Land. An interesting question on these lines might be 'If the people of the Land were denizens of our wourld of what faith would they be.

hmmm...I didn't mean he amalgamates. He is asking fundamental question, that belief systems address, and to which think they have answers. Systems have structures to support those answers, too. But he isn't borrowing/melding them, he's wrestling/redefining/questioning them. And doing it from the inside out: not by talking about it/analysing, but by putting chars. inside the problem itself, they're living it.

I'm not sure the peeps of the Land would pick any of our systems: their world does not require faith of the same kind as ours does. They have a leg up on the metaphysical...things unknowable here are obvious facts of existence there.