Worms, Roxanne! Worms!

[wayfriend]

This is going to sound silly, but can something symbolise something actually within the story in which it is written. I can get that 'Animal farm is a metaphor for communism and the pigs symbolise the communist leadreship of the USSR' but the Worm? Can it actually bot exist within the Land and symbolise the seeds of the Lands own destruction sown within itself, simultaneously? How does this work?

I wouldn't say that the Worm 'symbolizes' the capacity for destruction. I would say that the Worm 'fulfills' that capacity.

In a completely different way, if you consider that the world is a dream, then you must allow that demiurges manifest as real, and perhaps animistically.

[Zarathustra]

I think that we're dealing with a story that blurs the distinction between figurative/literal from the beginning, by putting TC in a fantasy world where the question of its reality is one of the first issues. We cycle through TC believing it was a dream, to deciding that the reality of the Land doesn't matter as much as his own responses to it, to finally an identification of TC and LF. So we go from the Land being purely symbolic of TC's pysche, to putting that issue in abeyance as a middleground approach between symbolic/literal, to finally accepting the reality of Foul and collapsing the symbolic/literal.

So I don't think it would be odd to consider the Worm as symbolic or mythic to its own inhabitants, as well as a literal physical being. We've been in that territory from the beginning. The fact of multiple interpretations of the Worm cries out for this kind of understanding. In fact, it makes sense of those apparently "contradictory" tales, if the reality of the Worm is itself a question for the inhabitants of the Land.

And it would preserve the Chronicles as a work of character driven fiction--rather than allegory--if the symbolic level pointed back to the fictional world itself, rather than pointing to our world. While the symbolic level is universal enough to apply to our world, too (something we could acknowledge after we're done reading and "taking a step back"), the suspension of disbelief can be maintained while reading by allowing this deeper symbolic structure to work as parts of the narrative, rather than author talking directly to reader.

[Vraith]

This is going to sound silly, but can something symbolise something actually within the story in which it is written. I can get that 'Animal farm is a metaphor for communism and the pigs symbolise the communist leadreship of the USSR' but the Worm? Can it actually bot exist within the Land and symbolise the seeds of the Lands own destruction sown within itself, simultaneously? How does this work?

I wouldn't say that the Worm 'symbolizes' the capacity for destruction. I would say that the Worm 'fulfills' that capacity.

It seems that there is some slippage going on...at least something that doesn't fit my frame/view...a conflation of some attributes of Worm and
LF.
To the inhabitants, the Worm may appear to be "destruction."
But it isn't IMO. It is death, entropy, endings, literally and figuratively...
Destruction, though, is Despite. Destruction is something done,
with malice, mind, intention.
Death is just what happens in any place with material and time.
Despite can use/cause death of course.
But that isn't DYING, that is SLAYING. It isn't ending, it is severing/cutting short.
Worm/Entropy are just facts...non-moral.
Foul/Corruption are acts...immoral.
Am I being nit-picky? Peevish? It just bugs my brain a little...just a little itch...when I get the impression/feeling [perhaps mistaken] of Worm and LF overlapping/oozing into each other.

[wayfriend]

Vraith,

What Donaldson called the Worm, precisely, is "the seeds of [the Earth's] own destruction".

After all, life necessitates death. Anything that lives carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. (And our own bodies demonstrate just how *many* seeds there can be.) The alternative is stasis. Indeed, anything that doesn't both grow and die (usually in that order) can't really be described as being alive. So if the Creator wanted to make a living world, he pretty much had to supply the means for the eventual ending of that world.

(04/29/2004)

In short: the Earth (like anything else) cannot live unless the Earth (like anything else) can cause it's own demise. Not just to die (which is trivial), but to bring about one's own death.

So: The Worm is the Earth's potential for self-destruction.

I don't see Despite here, personally. It's not malign or vindictive.

It's not precisely "Destruction", either. It's not destruction-as-chaos, as it's part of the natural order. In my opinion, it's not destruction-as-entropy either, because it's not falling apart or fading away. And it's not destruction-as-death, because it's actually destruction-as-life by the author's assertion.

The author asks us to consider our own bodies to understand the purpose of the Worm. It's not just that living things die: it's that living things contain that which, under certain circumstances, can destroy themselves.

The best analogy I can think of is a nuclear submarine. It has a nuclear reactor as a power source. The submarine needs that reactor to move around and do stuff. But yet, the reactor has the power, under the right conditions, to destroy the submarine. So: the submarine carries within it the seeds of it's own destruction. The reactor isn't Hate, it isn't Entropy, it isn't Chaos, it isn't Death. It's just a Potential for Self-Destruction.

So rousing the Worm is like causing a reactor meltdown, I guess.

Perhaps it is best considered as the power to Create implies the power to Destroy. Whereas Foul proves that the power to Destroy implies the power to Create.

[Zarathustra]

I think Vraith is on the right track to distinguish LF and the Worm, symbolically. Sure, things naturally run down in the universe, but we don't have to speed them along. In fact, we can resist the "running down," and doing so has real effects. It's not futile, even if in the end everything dies. And that's the point: how to have hope in a world where All Things End. The opposite is to despair (give up, stop loving), and to allow one's despair to sour into despite (actively choosing to speed destruction on its way).

[Vraith]

But the Worm IS those you say it isn't, Way...it is just that, in that world, like most everything else, it is externalized/embodied.

And I know I'm playing with the ordinary meaning of "destruction," specifying it in ways we don't day to day, [after all, we say floods "destroy" bridges and such]...

But I'm doing it on purpose...because if that, or something similar to that, ISN'T done, if things are conflated, glossed over, or elided, then the LF/Worm split is a difference without a distinction. It doesn't really matter much.

I insist on the opposite: there IS a difference, and the distinction that matters is that destruction is a malign, willful act by an intelligent being...
"Destruction" via Worm is inevitable, natural, and OUGHT to happen [Eventually]
Destruction due to LF is evitable, unnatural, and ought NOT.
[Ever].
The first is fulfillment of the nature of being/becoming.
The second is to abort the meaning of existence.

[wayfriend]

I insist on the opposite: there IS a difference, and the distinction that matters

I tried to capture that by painting different shades of destruction: destruction-as-chaos, destruction-as-entropy, destruction-as-death, destruction-as-despite.

-----

After I posted my last response, I remembered a different answer in the GI, which ties into the "seeds of destruction" idea. In a trimmed down form, here's the question and answer.

Pier Giorgio (Xar)

Anyway, on to my question... I just realized that time and again, all Laws that were broken in the Land that I can think of were broken because the Land itself, directly or not, provided the means to do that. What I mean is, without the EarthBlood, no Law of Death would have been broken; without a Forestal, no Law of Life would have been broken; and so on. Not even Foul with the Illearth Stone could apparently break the Law of Death without the unwitting assistance of Elena. [...] In other words, that for the Land to be rich in Earthpower, it must also "accept" the fact that it holds within itself the seeds of its fall, whereas to avoid holding those seeds [...], the Land couldn't hold Earthpower either (and therefore would be "powerless")?

• When you look at it that way, the fact that the powers in the Land can be used to break the Laws which preserve the Land is sort of a "Duh." That *has* to be true. Otherwise your world is nothing more than an exercise in ego, a piece of machinery which exists solely to glorify you.
  
  (07/13/2004)

Seeds again.

Just make a few logical replacements, and I think you have the best explanation of the Worm: The fact that the power that created the Earth can be used to destroy the Earth is sort of a "Duh." That has to be true.

A living being has to have some power to be effective. But power is a two-edged blade. It can be used to be effective, or it can be used to tear itself apart. The nuclear reactor.

This is, I feel, the purpose of the Worm. It's a Power. It's Power gives the Earth life, but with a twist of the blade, it can tear the Earth apart.

So it's not Despite, and it's not Entropy, and it's not Chaos, and it's not Death. It's merely the Power of Life, designed by Donaldson in a way that exhibits the two-sidedness of the Power of Life.

Of course, with Donaldson, it's more complicated than that. Free Will is Power. Power is Guilt. The Inner Despiser. Even Hile Troy. So I will include the entire question and answer now. If you think about the Worm will reading this, it's kinda fascinating.

Pier Giorgio (Xar)

Dear Mr. Donaldson,
I must say that when I first heard you were going to write the Last Chronicles, I hardly could believe it. There I was, just after I finished reading WGW for the first time, feeling sad because Covenant was gone and the journey to the Land was over, too... and then I found out about all this. Thank you! I was introduced to the Chronicles by a friend of mine from Venezuela, in Germany of all places (I'm Italian) - isn't it strange how life goes? ;) It's a pity your books haven't enjoyed much success over here :(

Anyway, on to my question... I just realized that time and again, all Laws that were broken in the Land that I can think of were broken because the Land itself, directly or not, provided the means to do that. What I mean is, without the EarthBlood, no Law of Death would have been broken; without a Forestal, no Law of Life would have been broken; and so on. Not even Foul with the Illearth Stone could apparently break the Law of Death without the unwitting assistance of Elena.
So, is this another facet of Covenant's belief that to have power (in this case, Earthpower) one (the Land) cannot be wholly innocent (in this case, by placing within the very Earthpower the possibility of "guilt", intended as the destruction of natural Laws)? In other words, that for the Land to be rich in Earthpower, it must also "accept" the fact that it holds within itself the seeds of its fall, whereas to avoid holding those seeds (being "innocent"), the Land couldn't hold Earthpower either (and therefore would be "powerless")? Or am I just rationalizing? ;)

• That's quite a question! I'm not sure I can do it justice. But here's how I look at it.
  
  You're a Creator; and you want to create a world that will be an organic whole, a living, breathing entity, rather than a mere mechanical extrapolation of your own personality and preferences. So how do you accomplish that goal? The obvious answer is: give the inhabitants of your world--or perhaps even the world itself--free will. Allow them to use or misuse as they see fit whatever your world happens to contain. Therefore they must be equally capable of both preserving and destroying your creation. QED.
  
  When you look at it that way, the fact that the powers in the Land can be used to break the Laws which preserve the Land is sort of a "Duh." That *has* to be true. Otherwise your world is nothing more than an exercise in ego, a piece of machinery which exists solely to glorify you.
  
  Such "Covenant"-esque ideas as "innocence is impotence" and "only the guilty have power" are inferences drawn from the basic precepts of free will. They might be rephrased thus: only a person who has truly experienced the consequences of his/her own destructive actions is qualified to evaluate--is, indeed, capable of evaluating--his/her future actions in order to make meaningful choices between destruction and preservation. Hile Troy is an interesting example. He's "innocent" in a way that Covenant is not: he's never done anything even remotely comparable to the rape of Lena. As a result, he's bloody dangerous. He literally doesn't know what he's doing: he hasn't learned the kind of humility that comes from meeting his own inner Despiser face-to-face. Therefore, in spite of all his good intentions, he makes decisions which bear an ineluctable resemblence to Kevin's.
  
  Do you doubt me? Look at Troy's "accomplishments." If Mhoram hadn't saved his bacon at the edge of Garroting Deep, his decisions would have effectively destroyed the Lords' ability to defend the Land. He's just too damn innocent. He hasn't learned the self-doubt, the humility, that makes Covenant hesitate, or that makes Mhoram wise.
  
  Does this help? I hope so.
  
  (07/13/2004)

Given that, you have to wonder if there is a connection between the Worm and the Despiser after all -- just a far less obvious one than both are forms of "destruction". Both, actually, are forms of Effectiveness. (Which the Last Dark brings home.)

(Hi, Xar!)