Kevin's Watch

(Be warned, this is a hell of a TL;DR thread. And my use of "TL;DR" is pun-intended. )

I mentioned elsewhere that I first read the first six books in this decalogy(sp.?) when I was twelve years old. This year corresponded to my decision to become "born again," not as a Christian (not then) but just as... Well, a Covenant-ite, I guess. I really had (and have) a religious attitude towards this series. (Don't so many of us? Don't some of us act like Mormon missionaries, buying LFB for our friends and so on?) I stopped eating meat, I started watching out when I walked so that I wouldn't crush bugs accidentally, I adopted pacifism as an axiomatic principle. More or less just because of Covenant.

In short, I accepted the task of redemption from my own inner Despiser by reading TCOTC. Where it reads, "In punishing oneself, one comes to merit punishment. This is Despite," I found what was at least for me the key concept in the story.

Fast-foward fifteen years, and I find out I was right in a more than just at-least-for-me way. Proof of this may be found on TLD pages 230, 488, and 508, as well as in Covenant's absorption of the Despiser.

Traditional Christianity teaches the following theoretical atrocity: God is obligated to torture us forever for our sins unless He forgives us instead, His forgiving these sins is an act of grace (i.e. it is not obligated), apologizing to God is not enough to remit our moral debt to reality, and contra the Irish(?) monk Pelagius, there is nothing in our free will that allows us to redeem ourselves (and semi-Pelagianism or even Arminianism constantly come under attack from the more psychotic Calvinist types).

Of course, Jesus seems to have prioritized forgiveness over retribution, so I don't want to say (as I now am a Christian) that Christianity is exceedingly evil. Only its classically triumphant form seems to be so wicked.

But so what? I came to forsake sin not in Christ's name but in Thomas Covenant's. Perhaps this is why some of us respond so profoundly to SRD's work. For in them, he presents the true moral order of amendment: redemption first, then apologizing and forgiveness, and punishment last of all, if at all--and then only as a means to the other ends.

So this also, via Immanuel Kant, might give us the answer to entropy. Here I will be mirroring Zarathustra's "Entropy and Despite" arguments. The idea is that our moral power is also our power to overcome natural decay. IDK how far Z thinks this power can go--can we completely solve the problem of death in a closed universe, or only relevant to our little fragment of the universe (therefore only for a little while, in the sempiternal scheme of things)?

Well, Kant argues that if we ought to do X, and if doing X requires Y, then Y must be possible. So if we ought to redeem ourselves of our sins (axiomatic), and if we can't be redeemed if we're dead, then there must be some way out of death. Or, at least, death-as-oblivion.

In SRD's story, this way out is literally a way out of the land of Sheriff Lytton and Co. into the Land of the Ranyhyn and the Giants and the rest. It's a way from Aristotle's Earth to Plato's (since SRD says that the Land's metaphysical status is comparable to Platonic heaven). Notice how the Trinity seems in the end of TLD "as though they lived half in the realm of the Dead; as though they were in transition, passing into or leaving a dimension of refined spirit."

Since the world of the Land is, more or less, the Platonic Form of the Story of Good and Evil, that world must needs suffer an apparent destruction at the Form of Evil's hands. But since the Trinity is obligated to save that world, then they can, and they do. This is a miracle, and it possibly cannot be described (hence no description of how it takes place)--but then Kant says the noumenal realm is inexplicable to us anyway.

Christ but I do love this series. QED

Interesting post, Mighara. I have always been struck by the semi-religious response that TCTC evokes in some people (myself included). The ending of WGW was very Christian in the sacrifice involved (although it has been explained to me why it doesn't necessarily have to lead to a Christian conclusion) and I also notice (as you may have) that it is a Trinity who re-creates the world at the end of TLD.

While I obviously knew about SRD's childhood in India, in a recent interview (on Nov 22, 2013) on a Christian radio station SRD spoke about himself in terms of being a believer (and it seemed to me most likely an evangelical one). This really surprised me as I'd never really considered it before (in spite of the overt religious parallels I saw in TCTC).

I also find it interesting that my two favourite fantasy authors: Tolkien and SRD were/are both deeply Christian. It may have to do with the power of the story itself (it predates Christ) that it continues to resonate and gather power right into the postmodern era.

u.

U, I've only listened to part of that interview, so correct me if I'm wrong about my general impressions ... around 22:00 minute mark, he said that he was raised as a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian in India, but then when he moved to America he found that belief system didn't prepare him for the culture shock of this country. And during college, he realized that a belief system of guilt and damnation was not one he could accept.

Now, if he has some version of Christianity which doesn't include guilt and damnation, I don't know. But that would be a very strange form of Christianity, indeed. In fact, there would be no point in salvation or forgiveness. No point in Christ.

Did I hear him incorrectly?

I was thinking of you, Z, as I was listening to the interview because it was you (and Vraith) who laid out the existential reading of the Chrons that opened up that aspect of the story for me. So, that is why I was so surprised when early on in the interview SRD talks about bringing 'grace' into the story in an indirect way. Now, I may be interpreting this incorrectly but it was more the way he said it (and the fact that he was doing an interview on a Christian radio at all) that it seemed like it was a given that he was an evangelical Christian.

I heard the part of the interview that you heard in the same way, but that's what surprised me, he never said that he was no longer a Christian. I kept expecting him to say it, but the moment never came. And that would explain, for me, why he was doing the interview in the first place. As you said, the implication is that there is some form of Christianity not based on guilt and damnation. As a lapsed-Catholic my view on Christ has not included guilt and damnation for a good while now. As I see it the message of Christ is about love not damnation, so I don't see any real contradiction in SRD's position. All the same, I am quite surprised that he seems to be such a strong believer.

I have noticed in the interviews since the publication of TLD that he seems to be more open about certain things. It may simply be that he previously didn't want to place undue pressure on the work itself before it was finished. He now seems to feel free to be more open.

u.

This has the potential to be a very big discussion.

I think it is certainly true that the Chronicles deal with philosophical and ethical issues and themes that are, if not exactly religious, the sort of thing that religions (and other systems of belief and thought) seek to address.

Here's another thought. My own religious background was nominally Anglican (or Episcopalian as it is called in the US) but substantively evangelical Protestant. For various reasons I lapsed from the faith at about 13 and have been agnostic since then. However, since about the age of 40 I have been prompted by my reading to think about the way in which ideas, and ways of thinking, that derive from religion continue to influence the thinking of individuals and cultures even after the religion in question has been abandoned.

For example, I have read that Italians are far more likely than Swedes to respond to a mild ailment by going to the doctor and asking for a prescription rather than soldiering on until it goes away. It seems to me that this could be because the Italians have historically subscribed to a version of Christianity in which the priest is far more important in helping people work out what to believe and what to do, whereas the Swedes have subscribed to a version that leaves more to the conscience and personal strength of the individual.

U, is it possible that he didn't openly declare his anti-Christian stance precisely because he was speaking to Christian audience, and it very aware that many Christians read his books, and interpret them religiously?

I don't understand Christianity without damnation. If we're not "damned," we don't need salvation. If we're not guilty, we don't need to repent. If Jesus didn't die for our sins, then what was the point of his sacrifice?

I don't believe you can have Christianity without guilt or damnation. It makes Christ irrelevant. I understand that he is also about love, which is the point of grace. But again, we don't even need grace if we're not guilty or damned.

Honestly--respectfully--I think he's using language that Christians think of as their own in ways which have nothing to do with their religion. Grace in the Chronicles means the grace he'd given himself, to forgive himself for being human, mortal, and possessing an inner Despiser. It also means how he forgave Linden for her catastrophic mistake. In the Chronicles, grace is something we give each other, not something bestowed upon those who believe the "correct" dogmas, or who bow to the right gods.

Isn't entry to the Land something that can be construed as a God's grace? All three RW characters live a damned life before being invited to the Land.

SS, if the Land were some kind of external paradise, perhaps you'd be right. But if it's the internal landscape where Covenant can meet his own psyche in an external form, then I don't see how that's grace. It certainly wasn't a reward for good behavior, or believing the correct religion.

If grace is something you can get by falling and bumping your head, or having your own inner Despiser (or cavewights, or ravers) summon you to a fantasy world where unspeakable horrors are still possible, it's a weird kind of grace.

Grace is forgiveness, isn't it? Entering the Land isn't forgiveness ... it's a chance to meet your own demons and conquer them yourself.

Let me turn this around to the Believers here: would the Chronicles really be diminished in your eyes if they had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity? That's putting it mildly, I suppose. I think they're actually anti-Christian, a rejection of that belief system. An indictment of it. But we can start with the milder version. Would it change your opinion of it? Does it only have value to you if you can fit it into your own preconceived notions?

What's the value of having the same story or morals told to you over and over? If it's just a repeat of the Bible's point, then doesn't that make it derivative and redundant? Doesn't that diminish its worth?

[Edit to add: the idea that there is Trinity symbolism in TC/LA/JA seems bizarre in the extreme. Do people here really think that these three humans are symbols for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Whiny little Jeremiah is ... who? Jesus? Well, I suppose he was a carpenter. No, please don't run with that. I didn't mean it!]

I have a strong memory of the time my fundamentalist mother picked up one of the 1st Chronicles books (maybe TIW?) and read on the back (paraphrasing:) "He was known as Covenant the Unbeliever, because he refused to believe in the world he was in." I had to do some swift talking to keep her from taking the book away from me, because it was about an unbeliever.

I've never bought into the Christian similarities in the books (whatever they may be.) The story stands for itself, free of allegory, in my opinion.

Zarathustra wrote:I don't understand Christianity without damnation. If we're not "damned," we don't need salvation.

Only the damned can be saved...

Honestly--respectfully--I think he's using language that Christians think of as their own in ways which have nothing to do with their religion.

And you're surely right, for why else does he have the Despiser and a Raver refer to Linden and Jeremiah as "beloved" children in whom the forces of evil are "well-pleased"?

Grace in the Chronicles means the grace he'd given himself, to forgive himself for being human, mortal, and possessing an inner Despiser. It also means how he forgave Linden for her catastrophic mistake. In the Chronicles, grace is something we give each other, not something bestowed upon those who believe the "correct" dogmas, or who bow to the right gods.

Which might've been Christ's original message. "Forgive each other, that your Father may forgive you," or w/e.

Zarathustra wrote:Let me turn this around to the Believers here: would the Chronicles really be diminished in your eyes if they had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity? That's putting it mildly, I suppose. I think they're actually anti-Christian, a rejection of that belief system.

I think so too, if we're talking about traditional, mainstream, or w/e similarly described Christianity. The idea that we ought to be tortured physically for all eternity unless we believe that some 2000-y/o man was also God's Son is quite possibly the most unethical idea that anyone in our entire world's history has ever conceived of.

And here's where my Gnosticism comes in. I think that there's something wrong between the Father and the Son. I think the Son realized this when He cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Or when (in the Gospel of Thomas) He says blasphemy against the Father and the Son is forgivable, but such is not if against the Holy Spirit. If the Father is perfect and the best of all things, why is it okay to profane Him but not His Spirit?

So what I think happened was that outside time (forgive how mystical all this is about to sound) the Father inverted the correct order of amendment in creation. He determined retribution to have greater value on Earth than restitution. Christ tried to reset the order of amendment, and thought while Incarnate that the Father wanted Him to do so, but then He found out the truth: the Father is evil. So the Father, after the Son died, took the Son's attempt to redeem the world by founding a church of forgiveness, and corrupted this church into preaching the wicked idea of hell.

Jung is known to be a major influence on SRD. And Jung posited a Quaternity--the good Trinity, and a fourth divine person Who is evil. In Covenant's world, God is a Binity, and the second divine person is evil. So if my mystical faith is right, then hopefully SRD, by the grace of the good parts of God, has been inspired to help reteach the world the truth of amendment (that restitution is worth more than retribution).

[Edit to add: the idea that there is Trinity symbolism in TC/LA/JA seems bizarre in the extreme. Do people here really think that these three humans are symbols for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Whiny little Jeremiah is ... who? Jesus? Well, I suppose he was a carpenter. No, please don't run with that. I didn't mean it!]

I don't know how intentional the TLJ Trinity is meant to be, but calling them a Trinity is convenient and fun.

EDIT: I realize the way I wrote the above makes me sound like I think of SRD as a prophet. I don't. I think others (e.g. Kant) also knew that punishment is less important than redemption. However, Tolkien, with Jung, seems to have incepted the new epic-fantasy genre for the sake of inspiring our (post-)modern world, and SRD seems to be following in their stride very well.

Interesting stuff. I don't have much to add, but I wanted to voice my appreciation for the thought put into this.

Yes,,I think LOVE is the big part of the Mystic of 2000 years ago message that SRD emphasizes over any ritual or dogma of any one branch of Christianity. There is the Love of a Mother for her son,,but further than that is the Love between a soul and its humanity..The heavy emphasis on " help' between all involved..comes to, we are here to help each other ,,a Love of Mankind in that. Loving our " selves", who we are,is an necessary portion of the sphere of Love or realm of Love that seems to engulf or hold Thomas, Linden and Jeremiah at the end,,and of course embracing our own despite as part of us,,part of our humanity,,again speaks of mental perspective,,a How..rather than a thing or a what.

From a surrealist point of view,,SRD does repeat in TCoTC , especially in the Last Chrons..easily discernible in TLD..Andre Breton's mantra,," of course, everything with Love!"..And yes, The Last Dark,,just may be,,the Mystery, the Unknown,,LOVE that a mystic brought to mankind 2000 years ago , that we're still trying to fathom today.

Z, it also occurred to me that SRD was being sensitive to his audience in the interview, but that prompts me to ask, 'Why do the interview in the first place?' It's not like SRD is some publicity hound who feels the need to humour a certain demographic of his readership. As I have said, my strongest reaction was surprise; after all the discussions I have had and read here on the Watch I had assumed that SRD was an existentialist.

As to needing TCTC to be religious, personally it's not really a factor for me. I read the 1st and 2nd Chrons when I was a naive teenager. I just loved and responded to the story and the characters; it wasn't until years later that I even began to consider any of the more abstract possiblities. As I said upthread, the basic story structure is a powerful one and resonates strongly without there being any need for it to be religious.

The need for humanity to be 'saved' does not just have to apply to damnation. The pre-emineince of ego-driven responses to the world in Western society can easily lead to the conclusion that some balancing response is necessary. Ego-driven societies are not 'damned' but, for many, the redemptive effects of love/grace serve to show that some aspect of our human nature is being neglected and in need of attention/nourishment. All religions, including Christianity can provide that sustenance (for those who feel the need for it).

u.

P.S. Like Mighara, I found the idea of the Trinity more amusing than anything else. I didn't even think of it until well after I had finished TLD.

I think the cosmology and (for want of a better word) theology of the Chronicles is not really Christian. It's closer to Zoroastrianism in that Creation and Despite are fundamental, if opposed, principles of the universe, but unlike Zoroastrianism it isn't dualistic because SWMNBN represents another fundamental principle (Love).

In terms of philosophical influences it's also pretty clear that existentialism is an important one. I'll leave that point there for people to think about.

DrPaul wrote:I think the cosmology and (for want of a better word) theology of the Chronicles is not really Christian. It's closer to Zoroastrianism in that Creation and Despite are fundamental, if opposed, principles of the universe, but unlike Zoroastrianism it isn't dualistic because SWMNBN represents another fundamental principle (Love).

This seems right enough, though I'd qualify that the Creator and the Despiser being reflections of each other/brothers or w/e sounds like perichoresis, which is the way that the persons of the Christian Trinity are supposed to mutually constitute a single God. But then the notion of circumincession, whatever its origins, can be applied to different theologies than Christianity's.

EDIT: And it seems as if SRD constantly adverts to this notion to explain the metaphysics of e.g. the relationship between the stars and the Elohim and between Her and Her victims.

In terms of philosophical influences it's also pretty clear that existentialism is an important one. I'll leave that point there for people to think about.

But what kind of existentialism? Not the dismal one Sartre might (mostly unfairly) be accused of, but some unwittingly Kantian (via Jung's influence) one, I think (or hope...).

In the GI, Donaldson did say that he was very familiar with French existentialists, and so that probably worked into his books, at least subconsciously if not overtly. But as my signature attests, he can also be compared to a positive (and mostly fair) reading of Nietzsche, who also took the values of Christianity and turned them on their head to become vices, substituting human meaning and earth-oriented values.

However, there are Christian existentialists. Kierkegaard, for one (regarded by some as the "father of existentialism"). His description of the aesthetic mode of human existence is almost exactly the philosophy of the Ardent ... well, one part of the aesthetic mode: “sophisticated aesthete.”

K thought the aesthetic “realm” is a way of living, a stage of life characterized by our relentless pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. Pleasure becomes our goal, guiding all our actions. We are propelled forward by primitive drives, seeking goals that we do not freely choose, but are given to us by our physical and psychological needs. However, we eventually find that the attainment of pleasure never completely satisfies the longing to attain it. That which used to satisfy quickly becomes old and boring. We must constantly increase our high, find a better drug or a prettier woman. Obviously, this cannot be carried on forever; we may overdose on heroin or get AIDS from our promiscuity, or simply kill ourselves in despair of never being fully happy.

The “sophisticated aesthete” is vividly aware of this danger, and therefore devises ways to get the most pleasure out of the least thing. The rotation method is an intentional, calculated method of “mixing it up,” constantly varying one’s pleasure. Boredom is the driving force behind our restlessness. To stave off boredom without destroying ourselves, we must find entertainment in the arbitrary and the accidental. Go to a play in the middle, start a book in the third part so as to exercise arbitrary control over the pleasure you get out of it. In this way you enjoy something entirely accidental rather than that which was planned for you, ensuring yourself endless variety. You should be open to finding pleasure in the insignificant, rather than constantly increasing your “high.” Everything should be enjoyed in leisurely draughts. The essence of pleasure lies in the process of attaining, not in the attainment. This is why we are so often left unsatisfied. We must prolong this process, rather than seek higher pleasures.

There is also Martin Buber. I don't know as much about him.

I actually would be glad if there was a lot from Sartre in Covenant... Sartre's writings on free will and bad faith impressed me to the extent that I read them (or about them), favorably comparing with, say, my reading of Kant's concepts of transcendental freedom and the role of self-deception in formative-years subconscious moral corruption. And the way the Lords governed the Land evoked for me the Kantian theory of justice John Rawls argued for.

While I'm on that, it's interesting what Rawls says about the light of eternity:

The perspective of eternity ["to see it sub specie aeternitatis"] is not a perspective from a certain place beyond the world, nor the point of view of a transcendent being; rather it is a certain form of thought and feeling that rational persons can adopt within the world. [AToJ, 1999 ed., pg. 514]

The soul in which that flower grows survives, I daresay.