The Last Dark Ending: The Real World Slips Away

[Mr.Land]

One of the things I expected at the conclusion of The Last Dark was a return to the Real World or some connection linking us back to it. Why, you may ask?

In SRD's "Epic Fantasy of the Modern World" the author stresses the decline of the epic as a literary form throughout recent history, finally being resurrected by Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings was divorced from the real world, and Donaldson strove in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant "to bring the epic back into contact with the real world" by focusing on "real" human beings, first Thomas Covenant, and then Linden Avery as well as Jeremiah.

By having our main characters fade away in an aura of magic or miracle at the conclusion to The Last Dark lessened for me personally the connection I felt to the story, and seems to run counter to SRD's intention of creating a fantasy epic that connects to ordinary human beings . Yes, Covenant and Co. were once of the real world, but they had become changed into something different by the end. Unable to return to their mortal origins they were also unable to stay in The Land. In a recent Barnes & Noble interview SRD was asked the following:

BNR: Our Earth recedes into insignificance in The Last Chronicles, and seems necessarily abandoned by our transcendent heroes. Do you feel that they had to shed their mortal identities entirely for the story's sake, or could there have been some balancing of those accounts as well?

and the author's response:

SD: I don't know how to answer this question. From my perspective, I created a story whose internal logic, themes, and emotions permitted no other outcome. This outcome became inevitable as soon as I committed myself to The Wounded Land. Every necessary resolution has already occurred. And I don't need to bring it all back to the "real world" because…well, because that's what telling the story is for.

What are we to make of Donaldson's comment that their could be no other outcome other than all of the real world characters dying. I don't understand why Linden or Jeremiah couldn't have been spared. At the very least the real world could have been pictured at the end, to somehow draw us back to the familiar. Donaldson seems to be saying that as the reader of the tale we automatically anchor the story and internalize it into our own mundane lives. Still, the Covenant of the first six books can be related to while the Covenant of the Last Chronicles, and especially of the epilogue is out of reach.

In Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey terms the hero coming back is a critical aspect of the process, and is referred to as simply The Return. If we are in psychological terms Covenant Covenant (or Linden Avery) then there is a need to bring back the boon or wisdom from our adventures so we can live our lives enriched. Has someone else discerned a symbolic element to the ending of The Last Dark that accomplishes this or at least makes a connection to the real world? I would be eager to hear of it.

[ussusimiel]

Check out this thread to get a reading which, while quite meta, does give a perspective on the LCs based on things that SRD has said in interviews over the years.

For myself, it wasn't until I read that thread that I felt that I was able to take something from the LCs and anchor it it my own experience. Basically, TLD completes a process that runs throught the whole of the Chronicles. When TC absorbs Foul he finally embodies an aspect of himself that he has defeated/denied (1st Chronicles) and accepted/surrendered to (2nd Chronicles). This is something that I can relate to my own life. The potential for darkness in myself (in humanity) is something that I have tried to defeat, then accepted (but kept at a distance) and now understand that I must acknowledge as integral (haven't quite completed that step fully yet ).

For me this is what I am able to take from the ending of TLD. It doesn't have quite the visceral emotional impact of the end of TPTP or WGW, but it does fit with the arc of SRD's story, and while I have criticisms of SRD's storytelling in the LCs, I have no complaints about the consistency of the underlying allegorical/psychological structures.*

Don't know if that's any help but it works for me!

u.

* There is also a development/alteration of the cosmological space within which the whole world of the Land exists that mirrors/parallels TC, Linden and Jeremiah's re-creation of the world and the Arch. Put simply just as they become the creators of their world, so do we, when we embody all the forces/potentials within us. Again, for me, this is consistent.

[dlbpharmd]

Hi Mr. Land!

Can you share more of the Barnes and Noble interview?

[lurch]

Seems to me that a response that begins with , " I don't know how to answer this question,," is an indication that maybe the question is perceived as " non sequitor".. Perhaps the question assumes that which isn't there or intended to be there by the author. ..?

Donaldson's polite answer walks away from the question, but tries to use similar vocabulary in expressing himself. Try this on and see if it works ...Donaldson does return it all to the Real World,,,not the Real World of the Chronicles, but the Real World of You and Me..

None of us are perfect. All of us are flawed. Covenant finds out he has a flaw that makes him a pariah, an exaggerated flaw for sure ,but none the less, tests ones ability to cope with despair. The Land is a metaphorical " State of Mind". The long journey of TC has not been for perfection, but has been for becoming " Whole",,not conflicted and divided by the way we think and perceive, not constructed as others would have us be, but True to our selves, our imagination and our talents , Whole, unified, above the polar opposites given to us, and whole in who we are beyond choices given to us.

Linden explores Love. Thomas defines Hope. Jerry is delivered to Compassion.New perspectives abound in TLD. Heck, even ole Despair has a new trick up his sleeve here and there.
Those three unify and by that example at end, rise above the old crumbling reality and in a pure metaphorical Epilogue,,suggest its now Our turn . The Real World of Who are we..awaits us all. The State of Mind, that the Land has been reborn as,,is given to us as an example,,as a metaphor.

For a real mind twister..try reading Shakespeares Macbeth..especially a online version with all the learning aids and side notes etc..and see how both TC and Macky..are flawed , make bad decisions, and then deal with the despair. Even tho they share like Darkness ..The Last Chrons ,,imho,,seem to be a reverse image of Macbeth. ..hhhmm, Birnham Wood as the Worm...???

[TheFallen]

For a real mind twister..try reading Shakespeares Macbeth..especially a online version with all the learning aids and side notes etc..and see how both TC and Macky..are flawed , make bad decisions, and then deal with the despair. Even tho they share like Darkness ..The Last Chrons ,,imho,,seem to be a reverse image of Macbeth. ..hhhmm, Birnham Wood as the Worm...???

Hmm. I'm not seeing much of a significant correlation between Macbeth and The LCs at all. Macbeth, being one of Shakespeare's simpler tragedies, of course features an archetypal tragic hero in the eponymous central figure. It's a trite given that the very definition of a tragic hero is one with a collection of admirable qualities, but with also a fatal flaw, an Achilles' heel if you like, which he gives in to and thus which brings him down. In Macbeth's case, despite his valour, military prowess and erstwhile loyalty, his fatal flaw is quite plainly ambition (plus he's all too prone to being pussy-whipped by wifey as well). Needless to say, if tragic heroes weren't at least partly good men (or women), then they simply wouldn't be tragic at all - cf. Lady Macbeth... is anyone really in the least sympathetic when she gets her come-uppance?

Sure I agree that TC is also flawed - he needs to be and not just for symbolic reasons (white gold's an impure alloy, TC is the white gold yadda yadda yadda). Unsurprisingly - and unlike many of the cast in TLD IMHO - TC is well-characterised. He's realistic and believable and it's his flaws that make him so, because humanity is essentially imperfect. Pure heroes tend to inevitably be two-dimensional stereotypes.

As for a parallel between TWOWE and Birnam Wood... I for one don't see a drawable worthwhile comparison between the Worm heading for the source of Earthblood and the English army attempting to sneak up on Dunsinane castle under the screen of camouflage cut from a forest. Okay, both occurrences kind of fulfil previously foretold prophesies, but that's about it...

[Zarathustra]

By having our main characters fade away in an aura of magic or miracle at the conclusion to The Last Dark lessened for me personally the connection I felt to the story, and seems to run counter to SRD's intention of creating a fantasy epic that connects to ordinary human beings .

I absolutely agree. As you might guess from my signature, I expected a human meaning, not humans turning into gods. The one thing that made this particular fantasy unique has now been rendered just another fantasy cliche. It's Neo flying away at the end of The Matrix. Hell, it's Sandy and [Travolta's character] flying away at the end of Grease. It's sappy and ridiculous, and says nothing to those of us left behind in the real world.

The idea that this outcome was inevitable from TWL is ridiculous. No one had to die to tell this story. If death was essential to his point, then that point is undermined by all the characters living happily ever after without facing the permanent consequences of death. It trivializes our mortality, renders it insignificant.

As for "telling the story" as an act of "bringing it back to the real world," this is just intentionally obtuse. He freakin knows what the interviewer means. If telling the story is all you need to "bring it back," then what was the point of choosing a "real world" character in the first place? Wasn't it to accomplish something else in addition to the telling? Every story is told. Every story benefits from this method of "bringing it back." Given the fact that there is nothing in this regard that distinguishes it from every other story in the history of story-telling, it is disingenuous to pretend that this sufficiently answers the question. He chose real world characters for a reason (as Mr Land points out above, from the essay on Epic Fantasy). That reason has been rendered pointless and insignificant by leaving behind what was real in these characters.

[wayfriend]

The B&N Interview is here: Stephen R. Donaldson: The Believer.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Mr. Land!

[Zarathustra]

The interview was interesting, but frustrating for the same reasons we're discussing here. For instance, Donaldson says:

... So why could Covenant not have "lived out his life during this utopic period in the Land?" Well, aside from the obvious fact that no one is ever done with striving for growth -- or with struggling against decline -- I believe that letting Covenant rest in Utopia for the rest of his life would falsify all of the issues that he brought with him from his real life. There was simply no reason for him to wrestle with his Unbelief if he was never going back to the real world.

Well, yeah, exactly. If I were the interviewer, I would have followed up with: so why did you end the story with him resting in Utopia for the rest of his life, and never going back to the real world? Why does the end of this series violate exactly what you were trying to accomplish with it in the first place?

But my intentions are focused on the personal meaning of ruin to my specific characters; and, by extension, on the challenge we all face when we try to lead worthwhile lives in spite of the eventual futility of everything we do.

Yeah, exactly! That's the story I thought I was reading. If I were the interviewer, I would have followed up with: so then why did you end the entire saga with the opposite of futility, wherein the characters don't have to face everything they love falling into ruin, because they can magically restore it almost instantaneously? How is that a story about ruin, or about leading a worthwhile life in spite of this eventuality, when there is nothing inevitable about the ruin??

These aren't issues we've made up ourselves. This is what Donaldson himself has repeatedly stated as the point of his saga. So how the hell does the ending not violate that point??

[wayfriend]

... So why could Covenant not have "lived out his life during this utopic period in the Land?" Well, aside from the obvious fact that no one is ever done with striving for growth -- or with struggling against decline -- I believe that letting Covenant rest in Utopia for the rest of his life would falsify all of the issues that he brought with him from his real life. There was simply no reason for him to wrestle with his Unbelief if he was never going back to the real world.

Well, yeah, exactly. If I were the interviewer, I would have followed up with: so why did you end the story with him resting in Utopia for the rest of his life, and never going back to the real world? Why does the end of this series violate exactly what you were trying to accomplish with it in the first place?

This is not very fair. Donaldson was speaking about the first Chronicles when he discussed the necessity of returning. This need not be (and apparently isn't) necessary for the Second or Last.

[Orlion]

... So why could Covenant not have "lived out his life during this utopic period in the Land?" Well, aside from the obvious fact that no one is ever done with striving for growth -- or with struggling against decline -- I believe that letting Covenant rest in Utopia for the rest of his life would falsify all of the issues that he brought with him from his real life. There was simply no reason for him to wrestle with his Unbelief if he was never going back to the real world.

Well, yeah, exactly. If I were the interviewer, I would have followed up with: so why did you end the story with him resting in Utopia for the rest of his life, and never going back to the real world? Why does the end of this series violate exactly what you were trying to accomplish with it in the first place?

This is not very fair. Donaldson was speaking about the first Chronicles when he discussed the necessity of returning. This need not be (and apparently isn't) necessary for the Second or Last.

Exactly, particularly since Donaldson has said that the "Unbelief Arc" was resolved in the First Chronicles (well, he said it was not important beyond The Power that Preserves... or something to that effect).

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, that works for the unbelief part, but not the fact that Donaldson claims we're never "done with striving for growth -- or with struggling against decline," or that "letting Covenant rest in Utopia for the rest of his life would falsify all of the issues that he brought with him from his real life." If we're never done with this striving, then at no point will it be the case that letting Covenant rest in Utopia no longer falsifies his real life issues.

Or the second quote.

[Orlion]

Covenant is dead. He is never going back to the real world, for character development or otherwise. He was mortally wounded at the beginning of the Wounded Land and was dead on arrival at the end of WGW. He has ceased to be. He is no more.

So what is he going to do now? Fade to nothing? Live in"Utopia"? Be a godlike being that lives in the Arch? A combination? Or is he going to rise from the grave and eat the brains of those that persecuted him while he lived on Haven Farm?

[Zarathustra]

Just because he's dead doesn't mean letting him rest in Utopia for the rest of his life wouldn't falsify all of the issues that he brought with him from his real life. I didn't make that up, Donaldson did. If it meant something in the 1st Chronicles, why is it different now (if our struggle never ends)?

Covenant's death didn't stop us from getting 4 more Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. In fact, it didn't even stop him from being a protagonist for some of those books. So if he can be magically brought back to life, given the powers of a God, then why would it be impossible for him to return to his real world?

Oh, I suppose THAT would have been silly. Not magically remaking the entire Land-planet and all its lifeforms and rainbows and happily-ever-after. No, going back to the real world was the impossible thing here. Okay. Why? If magic can move him between worlds, and he's clearly got a lot of it, can you think of a single reason why it's impossible in the anything-is-possible ending we got?

[Orlion]

Just because he's dead doesn't mean letting him rest in Utopia for the rest of his life wouldn't falsify all of the issues that he brought with him from his real life. I didn't make that up, Donaldson did. If it meant something in the 1st Chronicles, why is it different now (if our struggle never ends)?

The struggle doesn't end, but that does not mean it's the same struggle. Just because the day was saved does not mean Thomas Covenant gets to rest in "paradise." He has to deal with having Foul within him for the rest of his Landish Life and hope that by the time he's dead, Foul would have been changed by the experience. The struggle has not ended for Covenant and company, just the struggles of the first, second, and last chronicles... and since there's an afterlife in the Land, he might be able to continue participating.

Covenant's death didn't stop us from getting 4 more Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. In fact, it didn't even stop him from being a protagonist for some of those books. So if he can be magically brought back to life, given the powers of a God, then why would it be impossible for him to return to his real world?

When was he given the powers of a God? If anything he had the powers and knowledge of a God taken from him. Ultimately he only had his tenacity and the same wild magic power he always had which he always had to get started up by something else.

Oh, I suppose THAT would have been silly. Not magically remaking the entire Land-planet and all its lifeforms and rainbows and happily-ever-after. No, going back to the real world was the impossible thing here. Okay. Why? If magic can move him between worlds, and he's clearly got a lot of it, can you think of a single reason why it's impossible in the anything-is-possible ending we got?

Magic did not move him between worlds. Rather, it moved his "spirit" or "soul" or "mind" or whatever you want to call it. When Covenant was in the Land, his body did not magically disappear, moved to another dimension by magic. It stayed, it was still "living", and moved to a hospital a couple times, and was ready to receive him. There is no living bodies to receive the "spirit" or "soul" or "mind" of Covenant, Linden, or Jeremiah and no precedent that any magic within the Land could accomplish this.

[dlbpharmd]

The B&N Interview is here: Stephen R. Donaldson: The Believer.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Mr. Land!

This is a good interview. I was struck particularly by this Q&A:

BNR: You mention your dedication from adolescence to becoming a writer, and your early conception of Thomas Covenant's sage. Did you ever have a fallback plan, had you failed? What would that alternate-world Stephen Donaldson be doing now?

SD: Sadly, the "alternate-world Stephen Donaldson" would be teaching English at a community college -- if he hadn't already succeeded at drinking himself to death. The life I'm actually leading is probably the only one that could have saved me from myself.

[Mr.Land]

Thanks to everyone for the comments. I'm inclined to be both disappointed by Covenant's hazy departure and satisfied that he has internalized the Despiser. Perhaps that's the point. Both the Second and Last Chronicles were much more a psychological exploration. At the end of The Last Dark Covenant and the Despiser are one, much as Donaldson himself hinted at in the now famous Senior interview from 1991 where he described The Last Chronicles in 100 words or less. There's nowhere for Covenant to go except into each of us and our imaginations.

[Mr.Land]

Another way to look at it is if The Land is simply a mechanism for characters to work out their internal struggles then Covenant and Co. remaining in The Land could signify a psychological transcendence. I don't mean a transformation into the supernatural, but rather a transformation won through individual struggle whereby an aspect of the eternal can be held onto. Thomas Covenant hasn't become a god. He is simply wholly human, containing both the capacity for good and evil, and as a mortal being will pass away into the mystery of the universe.

[Mr.Land]

I'm looking forward to rereading the entire series to see how it all fits together.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

Perhaps SRD has done something even more peculiar: he's moved from the psychology of characters wondering whether their apocalypses are dreams, to the psychology of these same people actually faced with the apocalypse. That is, the Last Chronicles answer the question, "If Linden, Covenant, and Jeremiah died and really were in the afterlife, and the afterlife were identical to the mystical world they'd sometimes traveled while alive, what would they, given their personalities, do? How would they confront their archetypal struggles if those struggles were literally projected outside of their minds?"

[wayfriend]

Mr.Land,

The topics you put forward in your base post, I have also discussed in an earlier, rather studious post of mine, Fatal Musings: Epic Vision. You may find it interesting enough to add to. It certainly touches on almost everything you're thinking about here.

Anyway, in it, I also had observed that Covenant needed to carry something back with him.

I had also proposed that one of the purposes of Linden Avery in the Second Chronicles was to carry something back that Covenant could not, and thus meet the requirement.

And that, in the Final Chronicles, Donaldson had the license to forgo the requirement because he had already established sufficient connection. After all, he by admission doesn't like to write the same story every time.

After two more books, I am still of this opinion.