Kevin's Watch

Well over the last week or so, I've re-read ROTE and FR and I'm now halfway through AATE for the 2nd time - The Harrow's just bought it in the Lost Deeps.

I suspected that my uneasiness with AATE may in part or in whole be being caused by my viewing it too much as a separate and discrete entity - yes of course I'd previously read ROTE and FR, but there'd been at least a year-long gap since I'd touched either.

It's fairly self-evident that it would be unfair to consider a single quarter of a work of art as stand-alone, because such a position of judgement would wrench it out of the context within which its creator had fashioned it. To use my much-loved tactic of reductio ad absurdum again, for me to criticise a single note within a symphony or a single pigment within a painting would be demonstrably ludicrous - one's personal perception of both harmony and discord is purely a function of context.

Anyhow, so far - and it's absolutely admittedly only so far - I'm less perturbed by AATE on this second and contiguous reading. So far, I'm not finding narrative pacing such a problem and - sorry, THOOLAH - I'm finding Linden not exactly empathisable with, but certainly less irritating. There's another recent thread that accuses her of self-pity, but I'm not seeing this - quite the reverse in many ways. Certainly, ever since her meeting in the past with Caerroil Wildwood, SRD consistently describes her as "annealed" - strengthened/hardened by her tribulations to the extent where she is scarcely capable of any extravagance of emotion and especially something as self-indulgent as self-pity - her emotional state is frequently compared to Gallows Howe... hardly a place representing self-pity Others have described her as severe and I think that's an apt description.

Side-note - I've literally only just picked up on the Anele/anneal thing. Along the lines of Stave and Mahrtiir/martyr, you think?

Problems that remain with me so far? Two.

First, the characterisation (or lack of it) of the giants - they do seem not much more than incidental, just there to be "hired muscle" to move the plot along and that disappoints a little, especially given the care and attention that SRD gave - and our subsequent emotional response - to his portrayal of Foamfollower, The First, Pitchwife, Honninscrave and even Seadreamer in Chrons 1 and 2 ... I still think Longwrath with the Bhrathairealm sword is going to play a significant part in TLD, though.

Second, SRD's disposal of The Harrow. I found The Harrow and indeed the Insequent as a whole very interesting characters, but it's not the demise of The Harrow in itself that causes me unease. However, I *am* uneasy at such a quick and almost thoughtless way for Linden to get the staff and the ring back - it feels like not much more than a plot device to resolve a situation that might have proven narratively difficult to resolve otherwise. I'm also uneasy about Roger's immature "teen punk" shout of "SUCK-er" as he punches through The harrow's chest. That really was a note of discord to me and only served to belittle the seriousness of the threat that Roger is meant to pose.

However, so far - and I stress "so far" again - AATE looks somewhat better upon a contiguous re-read. Stave certainly gained in stature as a more rounded and complex character in my eyes. I do suspect that I'm going to have repeat issues with SWMNBN's imminent appearance and the cast slaughter that's due before the end of the book, but we'll see...

I am indeed doiing the exact same thing you are - an AATE re-read. And I am in complete agreeance with all your points.
I don't know exactly why, but I found it flows better the second time around..
But i still don't like the "sucker" line either.. Though I am getting better at telling the giats apart..

I loved "sucker."
I love all the modern language people from our world use and the fact that nobody in the Land goes, "huh?"

I also loved the "SUCK-er" line. And I don't think it detracts from taking Roger seriously. For me at least, these times when Roger demostrates his relative immaturity- think also "talk's cheap, asshole" in FR- make him even scarier. We are told again and again throughout all three Chronicles of the dangers of power, particularly unearned and unlearned power. And Roger's power is about as unearned as you could get, stemming as it does from a mutilated Elohim.

Unearned power combined with reckless immaturity is, to me, a pretty frightening combination. Roger's like Frankenstein's monster, a murderous being made all the more frightening by youth and inexperience. Maybe it's because he's around my age that he seems so vivid to me.

Cambo wrote:I also loved the "SUCK-er" line. And I don't think it detracts from taking Roger seriously. For me at least, these times when Roger demostrates his relative immaturity- think also "talk's cheap, asshole" in FR- make him even scarier. We are told again and again throughout all three Chronicles of the dangers of power, particularly unearned and unlearned power. And Roger's power is about as unearned as you could get, stemming as it does from a mutilated Elohim.

Unearned power combined with reckless immaturity is, to me, a pretty frightening combination. Roger's like Frankenstein's monster, a murderous being made all the more frightening by youth and inexperience. Maybe it's because he's around my age that he seems so vivid to me.

Very fair point re unearned power + reckless immaturity... I can see where you're coming from. I have no problem with Roger's potty mouth either - that's entirely in character.

Having said that, for all that Roger's immature and arrogant, the gloating "SUCK-er" thing seemed a little too 14 year old for me. He's meant to be 21, isn't he?

Alternatively, I'm just showing my age...

Let's just say you might reconsider relative levels of maturity if you ever saw me and my friends playing Halo...

TheFallen wrote: I'm also uneasy about Roger's immature "teen punk" shout of "SUCK-er" as he punches through The harrow's chest. That really was a note of discord to me and only served to belittle the seriousness of the threat that Roger is meant to pose.

Yes, yes, and yes to all of the above. But as for this, it may be helpful to note that Roger punched him from behind, like the coward he is, not in the chest.

TheFallen wrote:

Cambo wrote:I also loved the "SUCK-er" line. And I don't think it detracts from taking Roger seriously. For me at least, these times when Roger demostrates his relative immaturity- think also "talk's cheap, asshole" in FR- make him even scarier. We are told again and again throughout all three Chronicles of the dangers of power, particularly unearned and unlearned power. And Roger's power is about as unearned as you could get, stemming as it does from a mutilated Elohim.

Unearned power combined with reckless immaturity is, to me, a pretty frightening combination. Roger's like Frankenstein's monster, a murderous being made all the more frightening by youth and inexperience. Maybe it's because he's around my age that he seems so vivid to me.

Very fair point re unearned power + reckless immaturity... I can see where you're coming from. I have no problem with Roger's potty mouth either - that's entirely in character.

Having said that, for all that Roger's immature and arrogant, the gloating "SUCK-er" thing seemed a little too 14 year old for me. He's meant to be 21, isn't he?

Donaldson describes Roger as shouting in this scene, I see him as grinning with malicious delight like a wicked little child who just won at some game.

Kids are very interesting these days-- they are forced to take on a staggeringly difficult level of maturity because there is a notable absence of this in most adults. Yet at the same time, they are still kids. To compensate for this many young adults will cling to childish things much longer than the older generation who were expected to "grow up."
Roger is very much a youth of this generation.
The ways that the accouterments of our world, such as dress, language, and attitude are expressed in the land are all very fascinating to me.
While Donaldson displays a remarkable theme of redemption (Ur-Viles, the Lurker, to a lesser extent) I don't think Roger is meant to be redeemed.
From the first chapter of "the Runes of the Earth," he is portrayed in iconic terms as the alienated son who has no interest in any legacy but the power of the white gold. He has no attachment whatsoever to Covenant as a father, and little interest in his mother, except as a means to an end.
Roger represents a darkness more present in our world than in the land.
Redeeming him would be going too far.
Giving him credit for being able to impersonate his father is actually stretching things.

Lord Zombiac wrote:Kids are very interesting these days-- they are forced to take on a staggeringly difficult level of maturity because there is a notable absence of this in most adults. Yet at the same time, they are still kids. To compensate for this many young adults will cling to childish things much longer than the older generation who were expected to "grow up."
Roger is very much a youth of this generation.
The ways that the accouterments of our world, such as dress, language, and attitude are expressed in the land are all very fascinating to me.
While Donaldson displays a remarkable theme of redemption (Ur-Viles, the Lurker, to a lesser extent) I don't think Roger is meant to be redeemed.
From the first chapter of "the Runes of the Earth," he is portrayed in iconic terms as the alienated son who has no interest in any legacy but the power of the white gold. He has no attachment whatsoever to Covenant as a father, and little interest in his mother, except as a means to an end.
Roger represents a darkness more present in our world than in the land.
Redeeming him would be going too far.
Giving him credit for being able to impersonate his father is actually stretching things.

I like Roger, he's going to be bad-ass till the end. I have predicted that he will attack Foul with wild magic - whichever ring he will manage to acquire is anybody's guess - in a bid to take over Foul's attempt at becoming ruler of the Land's universe. In this way Roger will finish the job his father could not.

In some ways, Roger is like an ambitious boy who was raised in a boring backwoods community where nothing happens, and who compensates by imagining himself as some world-class gangster.

interesting, if true. Only Donaldson knows for sure!

Lord Zombiac wrote:interesting, if true. Only Donaldson knows for sure!

There might be a clue to the truth in the video at this page;
thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bsitu_e01

I can't imagine what this has to do with Roger, but the fact that Maddox is doing video now is jaw droppingly awesome!

The Fallen wrote:Second, SRD's disposal of The Harrow. I found The Harrow and indeed the Insequent as a whole very interesting characters, but it's not the demise of The Harrow in itself that causes me unease. However, I *am* uneasy at such a quick and almost thoughtless way for Linden to get the staff and the ring back - it feels like not much more than a plot device to resolve a situation that might have proven narratively difficult to resolve otherwise.

I thought that too at first...but when I put the book and began thinking about it; I saw it in a different light.
Two different lights in fact

The first was Anele, Liand and the Harrow ALL used the Staff of Law at some point, and they all died. Others have held it, but not used it. Kind of like how at the end of Lord of the Rings, when anyone who was a Ring Bearer, including Frodo (and eventually even Sam) has to leave Middle Earth.

The second light, was an extension on the first, that ALL beings who use Earthpower are dying off.

Remember that Foul had said that the Haruchai serve hiim, and know it not; well they've been banning the use of any Earthpower, and now that people are using it, they are dying.
Every Insequent we've meet in this time has died. The SOL wielders have died, and so has Infelise, and Joan.
Covenant, Linden, Jeremiah, and Roger are all dead, or dying in the real world too...perhaps its something else that Kevin's Dirt can do, rather than just obscure Earthpower, it also punishes for using it, but I think it goes even deeper than that.

The Land, or the Land's Earth itself seems to be purging itself of Earthpower.
Consequentiality, Earthpower , according to Anele's speach under Mount Thunder, is what the Worm of the World's End wants to feed on the most.

Remember, the worm, may or may not be an actual worm. Its also described by the Elohim in The One Tree as Word, Weird and Wyrd (which according to Dictionary.com mean pretty much the same thing:personal Fate)

So now that the Worm is awoken, it seems to possibly be eating up beings of, or who use, Earthpower.

So if its not an actual Worm, if it is the Fate of the World's end, it would destroy, or consume beings of Earthpower in its own way.
Rather than just winking them out of existence, it is causing them to die naturally...or as natural as killing can be considered.

I kind of think of it as how Time tries to regulate itself when someone goes back and changes something...

The really sad part of my thory, is that Ranyhyn are describbed as creatures of Earthpower...so they might be next.

Lord Zombiac wrote:Kids are very interesting these days-- they are forced to take on a staggeringly difficult level of maturity because there is a notable absence of this in most adults. Yet at the same time, they are still kids. To compensate for this many young adults will cling to childish things much longer than the older generation who were expected to "grow up."
Roger is very much a youth of this generation.
The ways that the accouterments of our world, such as dress, language, and attitude are expressed in the land are all very fascinating to me.
While Donaldson displays a remarkable theme of redemption (Ur-Viles, the Lurker, to a lesser extent) I don't think Roger is meant to be redeemed.
From the first chapter of "the Runes of the Earth," he is portrayed in iconic terms as the alienated son who has no interest in any legacy but the power of the white gold. He has no attachment whatsoever to Covenant as a father, and little interest in his mother, except as a means to an end.
Roger represents a darkness more present in our world than in the land.
Redeeming him would be going too far.
Giving him credit for being able to impersonate his father is actually stretching things.

I instinctively disagree to any sentiments where today's youth are more responsible, or forced to be more responsible, than those from previous generations. It's a complete fallacy in my mind, and I'm in my 20s.
In the 'Western' world the education systems (primary school, high school, uni, - or whatever they are referred to overseas) really do 'mollycoddle' kids so that they are still 'kids' when they get out of uni (early 20's). They are allowed and encouraged to mess about and not take life seriously, let alone not bother supporting a family for an unprecedented amount of time.
Now that contrasts strongly to situations in other part of the world, and at other times when kids were forced to take the full responsibilities and burdens of being an adult and raising a familiy at the age of 15 or younger.

But I suppose the description of Roger you give is apt.. He could well be a new despiser for a new Land..

Okay, I've finished my entire Last Chrons re-read, and... AATE has gone quite a long way up in my estimation. It's very definitely better when read in series like this as a proper part of a tetraology. I did feel that I possibly wasn't being fair to AATE and indeed SRD by not viewing AATE against its own author-created context, and it turned out that for me at least... I was right. A lot of the issues that made me uneasy reading it first time around no longer bother me - though some still do. Here's what and why.

Narrative pacing - far less of an issue to me. Several, including me, have accused AATE of being hugely long periods of inaction, followed abruptly by episodes of furious events and action - like a pressure cooker, heating, then venting, only to heat again. This didn't bother me 2nd time around - yes, the Last Chrons are very differently paced from the First, and also differently paced (though less so) from the Second. It's quite deliberate - think of the different movements in a symphony, if you like. SRD slowly builds tension throughout ROTE, FR and AATE to almost unbearable levels, only to release it temporarily and infrequently with a shocking abruptness. Think what high drama central character related events actually occur in ROTE - not much, except for the seeming appearance of TC and Jeremiah right at the end. The same is true in FR - we have the death of the Mahdoubt and TC's resurrection right at the end. Everything's building, and it keeps building throughout AATE.

Internalised drama - Linden was much less irritating on second read through. I do think SRD is more interested in "psychodrama", internal conflict and the metaphysical/metaphorical in general in the Last Chrons, compared to Chrons 1 and 2, but though this made the Last Chrons very different again, judged on their own merit, they read well and sustained my interest throughout. I really do miss the Land itself as a central character, though - it's really just not there. And I also miss some of the earlier Chrons' brilliantly depicted set pieces - the entire multi-locational Illearth War being a classic example of this.

Sudden disposal of apparently central characters - again this didn't make me anywhere near as uneasy as before. The demises of Liand, Anele, Galt and even Joan just felt like they fit better within the overall narrative. I still think some more could have been made of Esmer, though - the paradox that he represented felt a little unfulfilled.

Now for the problems that persist:-

Two dimensional characters - this really only continued to apply to the Giants, who remained far less fleshed out than previous characters that we loved like Foamfollower, The First, Pitchwife and Honninscrave.

Diaboli ex machinae - the sudden popping up of SWMNBN still felt stilted. SRD has traditionally been more than adept at tying the history of the Land together throughout all the Chrons, and certainly he's at his best in the LCs fleshing out and adding detail to historical elements that have been alluded to in Chrons 1 and 2. Although the she-bane's going to have an important role to play in TLD, she was thrust onto stage with no pre-announcement or hint. (The same's also true of the briefest of mentions of Jerrick, the Demimage of Vidik Amar and the Quellvisks he corrupted under LF's influence... huh? If either is going to appear in TLD, that's hardly seamless).

So, although I'm not going to be a "hear no evil" rabid supporter of AATE on a come what may basis, can I recommend to all that you re-read all three released Last Chrons one immediately after the other - I think it may well alter your perspective.

I agree with most everything TheFallen stated above, although we still don't know if problems exist without having the entire tetralogy at hand. And so, for now, they are only potential problems.

I am very interested in the way the Chrons are constructed. I know there is a new dissection thread starting, but exploring character motives and the like doesn't go as deep. I just think if we understand the way this was constructed then it can be appreciated better.

For example, it's been noted that after defeating Roger's cavewight army, the questors had no idea what to do next. It's been noted that this moment of uncertainty is quite unprecedented in the history of the fantasy genre, although I wouldn't know if that's the case for the entire genre.

But if one stops to think about this for a moment, Donaldson's purpose behind the indecisiveness was to allow them to give the Ranyhyn a chance to decide what to do next. This step was crucial in that it led to Jeremiah's mind being freed. However, it could have been done differently. The questors might have eventually stumbled upon the Quellvisk burial ground. But at least Donaldson's method of indecisiveness was unique.

I've been reading some of the earlier Chrons with a mind as to how these stories were constructed.

Diaboli ex machinae - the sudden popping up of SWMNBN still felt stilted. SRD has traditionally been more than adept at tying the history of the Land together throughout all the Chrons, and certainly he's at his best in the LCs fleshing out and adding detail to historical elements that have been alluded to in Chrons 1 and 2. Although the she-bane's going to have an important role to play in TLD, she was thrust onto stage with no pre-announcement or hint. (The same's also true of the briefest of mentions of Jerrick, the Demimage of Vidik Amar and the Quellvisks he corrupted under LF's influence... huh? If either is going to appear in TLD, that's hardly seamless).

I felt the same way upon initially being introduced to the Insequent - and many others on KW seemed to have similar difficulties in accepting SRD's retcon which emphasised their contribution to the Land's history.
But in a way SRD has been pulling this trick throughout the chronicles.
For example, the Elohim were afforded the briefest of mentions in the first chronicles before SRD redeployed these 'laughing, faery-like' people in the 2nd chronicles as the arrogant, demi-gods that we have come to know.

SleeplessOne wrote:

Diaboli ex machinae - the sudden popping up of SWMNBN still felt stilted. SRD has traditionally been more than adept at tying the history of the Land together throughout all the Chrons, and certainly he's at his best in the LCs fleshing out and adding detail to historical elements that have been alluded to in Chrons 1 and 2. Although the she-bane's going to have an important role to play in TLD, she was thrust onto stage with no pre-announcement or hint. (The same's also true of the briefest of mentions of Jerrick, the Demimage of Vidik Amar and the Quellvisks he corrupted under LF's influence... huh? If either is going to appear in TLD, that's hardly seamless).

I felt the same way upon initially being introduced to the Insequent - and many others on KW seemed to have similar difficulties in accepting SRD's retcon which emphasised their contribution to the Land's history.
But in a way SRD has been pulling this trick throughout the chronicles.
For example, the Elohim were afforded the briefest of mentions in the first chronicles before SRD redeployed these 'laughing, faery-like' people in the 2nd chronicles as the arrogant, demi-gods that we have come to know.

It's not an Insequent retconning. It's the same reasoning as used in the case of Amok. Why didn't the Bloodguard tell anybody about Amok? Because they didn't ask.

ninjaboy wrote:I am indeed doing the exact same thing you are - an AATE re-read.

Ninjaboy, I'd be interested to hear if your opinion on AATE has altered as mine did after a second time read through.