Kevin's Watch

Vraith wrote:

SkurjMaster wrote: Were the Skurj created from that fire?

I'm pretty sure the skurj WERE that "fire." Don't you know what your own slaves were doing?? No wonder Kasty could break them out.

I suspect LF knew...it served his purpose to wait for Kasty to slowly go nuts, slowly break lose, and bring the skurj with him. It was perfect for him, allowing him to just whisper advice.

Is there a text in the previous or current book that shows that they WERE the fire? I obviously need to reread, but I thought that maybe Kasty, going irrevocably insane in his Durance, created them in his quest for revenge. Of course, your statement makes logical sense. If they were not the fire, then it AND them need to be dealt with.

Still, what was their CAUSE? I hope we get to find out. If SRD does not deal with this, that will be a major plot FAIL, not just a hole. I would still read the final book, though.

SkurjMaster wrote: Still, what was their CAUSE? I hope we get to find out. If SRD does not deal with this, that will be a major plot FAIL, not just a hole. I would still read the final book, though.

I have no doubt that this will be a major point in TLD. (which in my mind is going to be a much different book than most people are expecting).

SkurjMaster wrote:
Still, what was their CAUSE? I hope we get to find out. If SRD does not deal with this, that will be a major plot FAIL, not just a hole. I would still read the final book, though.

I'm pretty sure...maybe WF will pop in with the exact quotes, always seems ready to search them out... we were informed that they were originally just natural, though dangerous, creatures...kinda like living volcanoes...they wouldn't destroy the world, just make it [eventually] unable to support things like people if left unchecked.
To me, this is just another clue that the Elo are mistaken about the blotch on their souls...they caused this by appointing Kasty, and they appointed Kasty because they just can't be bothered [as a whole] to tend to/care for the world, and part of their motive was to punish him.

I had the impression (from the story Findail tells) that the real danger the Skurj posed was in their location, in an environment that was supposed to be freezing cold. I'm guessing their natural dwelling place is in underground lava lakes and some earthquake or other disaster broke the crust of the earth in the north and let them migrate to the surface where they would melt the ice and cause global warming (or am I being too real-worldly? )

If they popped up in Bharathairrealm or Doriendor Corishev no one would care that much but because they invaded Ice-land and now the last Land forest and Andalain, they're a threat.

This is similar to the Ice Apocalypse the heroes prevented at the start of WGW.

The other way of looking at the skurj is that the Earth, being a living creation, contains the seeds of it's own destruction, and the skurj embody that seed. They exist for the same reason the WotWE exists.

wayfriend wrote:The other way of looking at the skurj is that the Earth, being a living creation, contains the seeds of it's own destruction, and the skurj embody that seed. They exist for the same reason the WotWE exists.

But by what Findail says, they were CAUSED. And then he refuses to speak of the cause. I sure hope that this gets addressed, because I will be awfully disappointed otherwise.

Let me throw something out there. Maybe the Elohim caused the Skurj themselves. Rationale: During the visit to Elemesnedene in TOT, on of the Elohim says (or maybe it was someone else) something to the effect that everything that happened in the rest of the world was simply a reflection of what happened there. Maybe the Skurj are simply a reflection of their self-despite? Maybe the Elohim have mistaken their Wurd.

What if the Masters are correct in that wielding of Earthpower is dangerous.

SkurjMaster wrote:But by what Findail says, they were CAUSED.

Well, his exact words were, "I do not speak of the cause of that fire, but only of its jeopardy to the Earth."

I don't read this as Findail refusing, just as skipping material not important to his story. And I don't read this as the fire was intentional, just that he's not mentioning the cause, which was the skurj.

That doesn't mean you might not very well be right. I am just saying I don't see it here.

Esmer says, "The skurj are mindless beasts, ravaging to feed. Kastenessen's will rules them, but they cannot harm the Elohim."

Based on this, I would say that the fire of Kastenessen's Appointment could not have been intentional unless some force ruled the skurj at that time. Who could it have been?

I admit it does seem odd that the skurj had suddenly became a threat at that time. Perhaps, though, it is merely that their numbers had increased for some reason. Perhaps they had harmed some integral component of the Earth. Perhaps they threatened to rouse the Worm. I don't know if Donaldson would ever say why, unless it's very necessary for other reasons.

It's also odd that the Elohim let Kastenessen break the Durance. Perhaps it was their desire that Kastenessen's fate, as an Appointed, would be his own to create, without their further interference. Elohim are chary of interference. Or perhaps it was part of a plan.

wayfriend wrote: I admit it does seem odd that the skurj had suddenly became a threat at that time. Perhaps, though, it is merely that their numbers had increased for some reason. Perhaps they had harmed some integral component of the Earth. Perhaps they threatened to rouse the Worm. I don't know if Donaldson would ever say why, unless it's very necessary for other reasons.

It's also odd that the Elohim let Kastenessen break the Durance. Perhaps it was their desire that Kastenessen's fate, as an Appointed, would be his own to create, without their further interference. Elohim are chary of interference. Or perhaps it was part of a plan.

I don't think it's odd, necessarily. Like the Sunbane, they were a long, slow threat they could deal with at any point over a very long period. They decided to do it then cuz Kasty was there and needed punishing. If it weren't for the skurj, maybe they'd have appointed him to handle the croyel or some other nasty thing.

On breaking the Durance...that's a good question. They couldn't have not known he was doing it, or when it was done even if they didn't know in advance it would happen...
But what could they have to gain, or what avoid losing, by not restraining/re-binding/destroying him? or is he in himself, or with Esmer under his thumb, too powerful even for all of them??? [though that last seems absurd] Working out his own doom makes sense from their view in normal circumstances...yet his freedom is tangentially responsible for the waking of the Worm OTWE...and that dooms all of them.

Skurj: the Master's are certainly correct that wielding Earthpower is dangerous. Where they mistake is by saying dangerous=wrong/corrupt/evil...and by claiming the right to determine other people's choice/fate/destiny.

Foul could have been the driving force behind the skurj. This could be one of the "other strategems" referenced by SRD in the WHGB of the Last Chronicles.

I do not have my copy of the TOT with me, but I thought that I would avoid my job for a few minutes and post while I had this on my mind.

Once again, during Findail's telling of Kasty's tale, he mentions some things which, even since reading the latest three books, I failed to remember or really take note of.

One: Findail mentions that Kastenessen fled with the woman. While claiming that there was nowhere for Kasty to run, he also seems to say that, if he had been willing to leave the woman, he could have made himself inaccessible to the Elohim. How?

Two: Kasty and Findail were close, but Findail was part of the Elohim 'away team' that captured him. Kasty heaped curses upon and promised retribution on Findail personally. It would seem that personal retribution on Findail has been thwarted by his merging with Vain, but does it have to be that way?


One last thing: How is everything destructive in the Earth and Land worm-like? We have the WotWE, the Skurj (kind of wormy), the Nicor, the merewives? Even SWMNBN kind of slithered or crawled, didn't it/She? There is some theme emerging in SRD's conception of destruction/evil.

Hmmmmm.....

Now time for productivity.

If you don't mind my surmises on these matters, SM, here you are:

One: I think Findail was trying to say that, had K ditched the mortal, it would have been Elohim vs Elohim, and that, under those circumstances, he might have evaded their intent. (Because no Elohim is superior to any other, I guess.)

Two: I always thought that Findail's Appointment was K's curse. It's certainly apropos.

Three: Nicor are descendents of the Worm, so that's explained. SWMNBN isn't wormlike, AFAICT. Sandgorgons and croyel meet the criteria, and aren't wormlike, either. Nor Ravers, etc. The only co-inky-dink I see is between the Worm and the skurj. But that's still interesting.

I had once said of the skurj:

Wayfriend wrote:As a creation, these monsters fit the Land so well. They partake of the Nicor, and the Worm of the World’s End. They borrow a little from the fire-lions of Mount Thunder. They inherit a little character from the fertility of the Sunbane. They remind us of the fire “born among the foundations of the firmament” which jeopardized the Earth at Kastenessen’s Appointment. They are so appropriate that they’re scary.

Of course, that was Runes, so now I know that they *are* the fire born among the foundations of the firmament. (Or at least it's cause.) But my point is, Donaldson drew on more than Worms when he made the skurj, I feel.

SkurjMaster wrote:One last thing: How is everything destructive in the Earth and Land worm-like? We have the WotWE, the Skurj (kind of wormy), the Nicor, the merewives? Even SWMNBN kind of slithered or crawled, didn't it/She? There is some theme emerging in SRD's conception of destruction/evil.

That relates back to Jörmungandr, the Midgard Serpent, middle child of Loki and Angrboda, who is so large that he encircles the entire Earth and is able to bite his own tail. Of course, Midgard already existed before Jörmungandr wrapped around it, unlike the Worm, around whom the world of the Land formed, but in both cases when the serpent uncoils the world will end.

Worms and serpents are closely related in mythology.

Covenant has many fine qualities but his resentment against his wife and ignoring of his son can very well be the biggest cause for what is happening in the 3rd Chronicles.

This isn't entirely fair. Joan made it perfectly clear when she divorced TC that she did not want him anywhere near Roger. And while they are given only the barest mention, Joan's parents (who brought Roger up after Joan went nuts) are said to have disliked him from the start.

Aleksandr wrote:

Covenant has many fine qualities but his resentment against his wife and ignoring of his son can very well be the biggest cause for what is happening in the 3rd Chronicles.

This isn't entirely fair. Joan made it perfectly clear when she divorced TC that she did not want him anywhere near Roger. And while they are given only the barest mention, Joan's parents (who brought Roger up after Joan went nuts) are said to have disliked him from the start.

Joan may have made it clear that she didn't want Covenant near Roger, but there's no real sign in the First or Second Chronicles that Covenant really had much interest in Roger at all.

Joan's betrayal wounds him. Her attempts to reconnect with him in The Illearth War touches him. Roger gets a cameo at the end of The Power That Preserves as a vision of Foul's. He's mentioned once or twice in the Second Chronicles with Linden saying something like, "It's not that easy for a child to forget it's father."

But mostly, Roger was a cipher to Covenant. He was taken away from Covenant too soon to really bond with him, and there's no sense that Covenant made any attempt to contact Roger while he lived or made any provision for his son to know who he was after his death.

Roger is a sociopath, perhaps. A murderer without a doubt. He's a very human monster. But he wasn't born that way.

He was made.

But mostly, Roger was a cipher to Covenant. He was taken away from Covenant too soon to really bond with him, and there's no sense that Covenant made any attempt to contact Roger while he lived or made any provision for his son to know who he was after his death.

This is really important, or at least it SHOULD be.

I think it's safe to take it as a given that Covenant didn't even try to contact Roger in the 10 years between the first and second chronicles. If he had, SRD would have told us about it somewhere in the 2nd chronicles. And that's something too important to just gloss over.

starkllr wrote:

But mostly, Roger was a cipher to Covenant. He was taken away from Covenant too soon to really bond with him, and there's no sense that Covenant made any attempt to contact Roger while he lived or made any provision for his son to know who he was after his death.

This is really important, or at least it SHOULD be.

I think it's safe to take it as a given that Covenant didn't even try to contact Roger in the 10 years between the first and second chronicles. If he had, SRD would have told us about it somewhere in the 2nd chronicles. And that's something too important to just gloss over.

The one question I'd ask SRD right now is "Did Covenant ever love his son?"

I certainly don't have an impression anywhere that Covenant spares much thought about Roger at all. I'm not a parent myself, but I think most mothers and fathers who do love their children NEVER give up on them regardless of the evil things that they may have done.

I'm not saying that Roger is redeemable. I don't think he is.

I do think less of Covenant for not making the attempt.

To each his own. But I think that your falsely judging Covenant because a story has focus and is finite. All I see here is something that wasn't part of the story Donaldson was telling.

Roger is obviously part of the story Donaldson is telling. And the fact that he's a son-of-a-bastard is definitely part of it. Roger was made, but not only by his mother. Perhaps the absence of his father's love has also shaped him. It's a fair point to note this absence, but perhaps we're looking at it backwards to think that SRD isn't taking it into account. I'm sure he has considered it as foundational to Roger's character, otherwise he wouldn't be the "evil Covenant." His non-relationship with his father is between the lines of every page of the Last Chronicles.

Zarathustra wrote:Roger is obviously part of the story Donaldson is telling.

The narrative of why or why not Covenant didn't spend ten years trying to be his son's father isn't part of the story. (Or, at least, hasn't been as yet.) Joan took him, Covenant thought she was right, and that's all Donaldson wrote about it. I'm just saying that because Donaldson didn't write about it doesn't mean Covenant stopped caring for his son. Maybe someone can think he should have written about that, that the character seems incomplete without that aspect written, but that's a different comment than Covenant is a deficient father.

It's true that Donaldson doesn't write more than he needs to write, and it's "thinking beyond the text" to speculate or judge areas that go beyond his aims and focus. For instance, all the debates about technology of the Land, why no gays in the Land, the legitimacy of Hile Troy's battle tactics, etc. However, he did choose to make Roger a very important part of his story, and he did choose to make the theme of relationships with children (i.e. Jeremiah) absolutely crucial, front and center to the plot. The Last Chronicles are more about family relationships than any other Chronicles so far. Therefore, it's not necessarily speculating beyond the text to note the absence of a feature which is fundamental not only to the main character, but also to one of the antagonists, and to an underlying theme of this particular Chronicles. Just comparing Linden's reactions to her son's plight to Covenant's reactions to his son begs us to think about these things.

I'm not criticizing Donaldson for leaving it out. I'm saying that perhaps it was intentional ... to call attention to the fact. And yes, it also might mean that Covenant wasn't the father he should have been, and was too caught up in his own suffering to give enough thought to his son's plight. Just because Joan took Roger isn't a good enough excuse, because Covenant still clearly cared about Joan after she left. Roger's actions are his own, but it's still a fair point to say that he was shaped by his situation, just as Joan was. And just as Covenant was. They're a broken, disfunctional family. Covenant's apparent lack of concern for Roger is part of that. Instead of him thinking, "She (Joan) took my son, robbed me of my Fatherhood!" he perhaps should have been thinking, "She took his (Roger's) father, robbing him of his chance of feeling that love." He definitely seems more self-absorbed than empathetic. I can see how Kaos Arcanna or others might feel less sympathy for this character as a result.

[It's odd that no one seems to worry about "thinking outside the text" when they are justifying or explaining an apparent contradiction, only when others note problems or contradictions with the text ... see my Hollian/Sunder/Anele thread in the Runes forum for such "outside the text" thinking by those who have tried to dismiss the inconsistency I found. Feel free to join the discussion and criticize their theories on this basis, if you'd like.]