the ending

[wayfriend]

acolyte: one who attends or assists : FOLLOWER

Acolyte goes back to the Greek root akolouthos, meaning "follower," and it came into English in the 14th century. While an acolyte often serves in an earned and admired role within a religious ceremony, a second definition is "fan." Acolytes of movie star or pro athletes closely follow their careers — and with great admiration — and would love to be just like their heroes.

Perhaps I need to modify my understanding of the term. It has a lot less to do with being some sort of student or trainee than I had understood.

Now I will have to rethink what Donaldson meant when he said:

Except I obviously wasn't thinking of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. More like Creator, Destroyer, and Holy Ghost (wild magic). Or Creator, Destroyer, and--what shall we call Covenant as the protagonist of the drama?--Acolyte.

Follower? Attendant? Assistant?

[Vraith]

acolyte: one who attends or assists : FOLLOWER

Acolyte goes back to the Greek root akolouthos, meaning "follower," and it came into English in the 14th century. While an acolyte often serves in an earned and admired role within a religious ceremony, a second definition is "fan." Acolytes of movie star or pro athletes closely follow their careers — and with great admiration — and would love to be just like their heroes.

Perhaps I need to modify my understanding of the term. It has a lot less to do with being some sort of student or trainee than I had understood.

Now I will have to rethink what Donaldson meant when he said:

Except I obviously wasn't thinking of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. More like Creator, Destroyer, and Holy Ghost (wild magic). Or Creator, Destroyer, and--what shall we call Covenant as the protagonist of the drama?--Acolyte.

Follower? Attendant? Assistant?

Exactly why I was pointing that out...
And we have a previous sample directly in the text.
Our Ribbanded [and in some ways ribald] friend declares himself an "acolyte" of the Mahdoubt...with no impression or implication that his particular LORE was knowledge TAUGHT to him by her. Their paths/fields are nearly opposites in many ways.

[TheFallen]

This gets more confusing rather than less, what with that relevant G.I. quote - typically good find again, WF - being thrown into the mix. A few further points:-

1. IMO, there is definitely an implication of receiving learning inherent in the word "acolyte". Okay that learning may not be at all regimented or formal, but it's there - it's learning by watching and emulating, by example.

2. There are also elements of subservience in the word. An acolyte serves the person he or she follows.

3. If the Ardent had already declared himself to be an acolyte of the Mahdoubt (which I now remember that he did), why, at the appearance of that final figure, does TC remark that all of a sudden the Insequent have "finally given credence to the idea of acolytes"? The Ardent must have been ahead of the curve?

4. Okay, things maybe start to hang together better if one views the term "acolyte" solely in its meaning of "assistant". The final Insequent can very much be seen as a potential assistant (or guide... that's a bit of a reach in the semantics of "acolyte, but anyways) to the dynamic trio. That fits better in with the Berek/Theomach reference.

5. But then we have the G.I. quote... what the Hell did Donaldson intend by that? Of whom is TC an acolyte? Of the Creator? Of LF, even? Or perhaps of the pair, now that TC is his whole, individuated self? Does this circle back to learning again, now that TC has learned to assimilate his dark side and become complete?

Who knows?

[wayfriend]

Agreed. "Acolyte" is a term with many possible nuances. And the nuance used can be different on each occurrance.

Regarding the Ardent and the Mahdoubt:

"I am an acolyte - if such as the Insequent may be said to have acolytes - of the Mahdoubt. I lack both her kindliness and her arduous knowledge of Time. Also I lay no claim to her manifest valor. Yet I esteem her example highly. So great is my esteem, indeed, that I follow her as I would a guide, though even the most casual glance at my person will discern that I require no guidance."

Reading this, I am inclined to believe the Ardent is a "fan" of the Mahdoubt, and also a "follower". His admissions indicate that he is not a "disciple" (a term which I think people may confuse with "acolyte"), and furthermore that the notion of a disciple is antithetical to the Insequent. As Vraith points out, there's no indication that the Ardent learned anything from the Mahdoubt at all. (Or that the Mahdoubt even knew about the Ardent.)

Regarding the trinity, the emphasis on wild magic as "holy ghost" inclines me to think Donaldson is referring to Covenant as an a sort of "active agent". The instigateur of the dynamics of the trinity. The blood. In this light, I am inclined to consider "acolyte" in the sense of "attendant" or "assistant". "follower" also fits, in the sense that Covenant is capable of following either Despite or Life, save or damn. So while I don't know which Donaldson means, I think which one he means is very important to interpreting this.

Regarding "the Acolyte", there are also several interpretations. The similar clothing is of course the key. The similarity to several other Insequent, and not just one, is prpbably also key. It may only indicate being a "fan".

But the emphasis on the "the" is also a clue. Is she the most important acolyte, or the only acolyte, or the first acolyte? ("The One Acolyte", heh.)

My heart leans towards Covenant's comment that the Insequent are "finally giving credence of the idea of acolytes". And that The Acolyte will teach them what, at least, the Theomach had known. These clues imply a "disciple" to me, regardless of other concerns. A disciple of other Insequent. But "assistant" may be close enough to the mark here.

[Vraith]

But the emphasis on the "the" is also a clue. Is she the most important acolyte, or the only acolyte, or the first acolyte? ("The One Acolyte", heh.)

That cracked me up.
Since we're dealing with nuance, and SRD himself has said...probably more than once...roughly "if a word means more than one thing, I mean them both" [[a thing I highly approve of, as a matter of taste/preference]]...

one of the nuances of acolyte, if you look at what they DO...very often they assist/follow/attend a person, yes, BUT: that "person" is not what we usually mean when we say "teacher" and definitely not what we mean when we say "master." It's usually a matter of position/rank...and a symbolic aspect as well. The acolyte and the master BOTH serve/represent/[often attempt to emulate] something/one higher.
The Catholic church seems a perfect example, with all its branches and arms and orders and advisory people/roles and scholars. There are literally hundreds of people whose main purpose is to teach/impart knowledge to the Pope if he needs it. [not to mention all the ritual/ceremony!]
In many ways [but with variations and not precise] military institutions/structures run along similar lines.

[hamako]

The ending was terrible. Armageddon central in Kiril Threndor, a whacking great slow worm tearing up Melenkurion Skyweir, and then "ah, isn't this nice, walking around in Andelain"!!

I wanted blow by blow details of how the whole thing got resolved, not just, ah yeah we simply remade everything in the blink of an eye.

After enduring HUNDREDS of pages of Linden Piggin Avery whittering on an whining about EVERYTHING, I think the least we could have had was some sort of quality ending.

I tell you, I nearly flushed my Kindle down the bog in frustration when I read the ending.

as you can see, age has mellowed me some. 12 years since I joined??! WHAT?

[Zarathustra]

Regarding the trinity, the emphasis on wild magic as "holy ghost" inclines me to think Donaldson is referring to Covenant as an a sort of "active agent". The instigateur of the dynamics of the trinity. The blood. In this light, I am inclined to consider "acolyte" in the sense of "attendant" or "assistant". "follower" also fits, in the sense that Covenant is capable of following either Despite or Life, save or damn. So while I don't know which Donaldson means, I think which one he means is very important to interpreting this.

I prefer Donaldson's own interpretation, found immediately after the portion you didn't quote in the same GI post:

If anything, the tradition I was drawing on was Christian (because of my background in fundamentalist Christianity, not because I am in any useful sense a believer): the Trinity, God in Three Persons. Except I obviously wasn't thinking of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. More like Creator, Destroyer, and Holy Ghost (wild magic). Or Creator, Destroyer, and--what shall we call Covenant as the protagonist of the drama?--Acolyte. But you're quite right about the "shared identity" theme. I was explicitly thinking of the Creator, the Despiser, and wild magic as aspects of Covenant himself. And the part of himself which he denies--wild magic, his own personal power to assign meaning to his life and experiences--is the part which must mediate his internal conflicts (the struggle between the creative and destructive sides of his nature). Hence the thematic development from the first to the second "Chronicles." In the first, Covenant opposes his--dare I say it?--Dark Side and wins (an expensive--and temporary--victory). In the second, he surrenders to his Dark Side, and thereby gains the power to contain it (another expensive--and temporary--victory). "The Last Chronicles" will explore this theme further as Covenant's quest to become whole continues. (Linden Avery is also on a quest to become whole, but hers takes an entirely different form.)

My general view of the kind of fantasy I write is that it's a specialized form of psychodrama. Putting the issue as simply as I can: the story is a human mind turned inside out, and all of the internal forces which drive that mind are dramatized *as if* they were external characters, places, and events. This is easier to see in the first "Chronicles" because the story is simpler: the Land and everyone in it is an external manifestation of Covenant's internal journey/struggle. Everything is more complex in "The Second Chronicles" because there are *two* minds being turned inside out. Which means that there are actually three stories at work: Covenant's, Linden's, and the interaction between the two.

<sigh> And if I wanted to say more than *that* on the subject, I would write dissertations instead of novels.

(04/27/2004)

He's pretty clear and explicit about it. It's not an instigator, but a mediator. As Donaldson says, it's his power to assign meaning to his life. This is extremely important, because for most of human history, we have allowed others to define meaning for us, whether those are authority figures, religions, dogmas, society, etc. But realizing that meaning is *your* responsibility forces you to make choices between your own Creative and Destructive sides. Hence, the mediation.

The mention of "shared identity theme" is interesting in this context, due to The Acolyte being an amalgamation of three different Insequent. When you join this with his final words (in the quote above) about this psychodrama being two minds turned inside-out, and their interaction making three stories, it gets even more interesting. Jeremiah doesn't really have his own story ... he's the nexus between Covenant and Linden. He's what brings them together in the LC, the reason Linden brings Covenant back from the dead (otherwise she may not have violated his memory or the world in this way). So The Acolyte might be another way to make this "shared identity" idea explicit in the book, at least figuratively ... especially if the Insequent function as symbols of the Creator side of each real world character, as I've suggested in another thread.

There is definitely some intentional blurring going on with the use of this word. Covenant is clearly referring to himself (and Linden, and Jerry) when he says they need teaching. But then he calls the amalgamation Insequent "the Acolyte," as if he/she needs the teaching. But really I think it's a way to point out that these are shared identities, so that we don't have to think of this as a strict teacher/student relationship, but instead a general attitude of learning (instead of just acting on instinct or emotion) within oneself, since there isn't really any external teacher here. It's all their own minds. They're teaching themselves ... or each other.

And the final emphasis on learning, specifically learning lore, seems to contradict one of Lurch's main points about the emphasis on emotion instead of logic and reason. Lore isn't an exact parallel to those concepts, but it's certainly not emotion. Acting on emotion has saved the day many times, but it has also produced some horrific results. In the end, Covenant recognizes that he can't simply act on intuition/emotion all the time, and must become more rigorous and studious in his application of assigning meaning, especially since he has Foul within him now and intends to contain him. Lore isn't just good for launching satellites ... it's also about how to live your life and be Human.

But the emphasis on the "the" is also a clue. Is she the most important acolyte, or the only acolyte, or the first acolyte? ("The One Acolyte", heh.)

I think it's emphasis on a singular acolyte rather than plural. The shared identity theme. A natural emphasis after incorporating Foul into himself.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We should probably go with the oldest definition for acolyte, which would be "follower". There is no more Creator--we saw no hints in either our world or the Land that he was still in existence--and now there is no more Foul. There is only Covenant, the one who has come after the two of them are gone, and is not until there is no more Foul--in a manner of speaking--that Covenant is ready to work with Linden and Jeremiah to reweave the fabric of reality. I tried looking for other occult definitions or usages of the term "acolyte" but none of the major ones (Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Knights Templar, etc) use that term.

[dpolking]

The end of the old world and re-creation was all said and done seemingly without effort. To me the re-building of the world should have been given at least the same level of detail and struggle as Linden's victory over the Sunbane at the end of the 2nd Chronicles. I was glad for the happily ever after ending. However, I feel that seeing the struggle of wild magic, earthpower, and Jerry's construction talents play out in some fashion against the worm's unleashed destruction would have given the epilogue more emotional impact.

[Avatar]

Yeah, agreed that it was sorta glossed over. And as you say, apparently effortless.

--A

[Condign]

Well it's a while now since I finished the book.

And without the emotion of the time, I can still say with a clear conscience that the ending sucked.

'effortless' is the exact word I'd use too!

[lurch]

Yes, Thats the nature of " metaphor"..The end , including epilogue,,is all metaphor. Metaphor requires " work" by the reader,, by the beholder, . The authors effort was in creating the Metaphor. The readers " work" is in perceiving the metaphor and defining to their own individual " meaning". So..the repeated perception that The End was without effort by the author..well..seems to me the " with out effort" is being deflected, is directed at the wrong party of the relationship established when one picks up a book to read.

Again, the book starts in metaphor,,and the book ends in metaphor. and yea,,it takes effort from the reader to " work" it all..The hint is..the ending of the book ..is not the ending of the Story. Each reader picks up the " tale" and works or not works,,what the reader got from the Metaphor of the Story..To say the ending was effortless..suggests an anticipation that the author is to do all the work. The reality of Literature,,as Art, suggests otherwise.

[peter]

A book can be like a vinyard watered with rain or a vinyard watered with wine...... When used a book can be cured or killed in the reading. it can be changed, fattened or raped. Its course can be rechanelled; it is constantly loosing something; you drop letters through the lines, pages through your fingers, as new ones keep growing before your eyes, like cabbage. If you put it down, tomorrow you may find it like a stove gone cold, with no supper waiting for you any more. Moreover, today people do not have enough solitude to be able to read books...without harm. But to this too there is an end. A book is like a scale. It tilts first to the right untill it tilts to the left, forever. Its weight thus shifts from the right hand to the left, and something similar has happened in the head - from the realm of hope thoughts have moved to the realm of memory, and everything is over. The reader's ear may perhaps retain some saliva from the writer's mouth, words borne by the wind with a grain of sand at the bottom. Over the years voices will settle around that grain, as in a shell and one day it will turn into a pearl, into black goat-cheese, or into a void when the ears shut like a shell. And least of all does this depend on the sand.