What, if anything, are the Last Chrons trying to teach us?

[peter]

I have heard in these pages that the Last Chrons are 'metaphor', they are allegorical, they reflect where SRD is in his life, but tell me this - are they didactic? If so what is the message that SRD is trying to impart?

[ozrics]

Good question Peter. IMHO its a simple message. Despite, despair, depression, whatever you want to call it cannot be forever banished. It cannot be defeated (1st chrons) nor will surrendering to it work as a solution for an individual (2nd chrons). It has to be accepted as part of oneself and only then can you be at peace with yourself (3rd chrons).

[Vraith]

I think I'd modify, or add to, that last one.
It is a NECESSARY part of "you."
And something a little more active than acceptance...engagement/dialogue/argument with it in order to use/channel/draw on its energy/power.

[ozrics]

Hmm V, interesting concept, the necessity and power of despair. I think I'll ponder that for a while before responding. This is a topic close to my heart.

[Dondarion]

Oz, this too is something close to my heart, and a key reason I love the Chronicles. I have noticed that Wayfriend  references a great Donaldson quote in his signature-footer, “Every weakness is strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use”.  “Strength in inadequacy”, “necessity of freedom” are other Donaldson faves of mine.  Truth in the paradox.  There is much of this in the  Chronicles, and I have shed much of my own "unbelief" along the way.  

For me, it comes down to the fact that despite, apathy, and a general attitude of indifference can lead to nothing but destruction, of self and those around us we are responsible for.  But we are given a choice.   We can either opt out and let it all take its own course, believing we don’t matter.  Or we can engage, respond, actievely strive, not counting all the cost, but relying on hope, and help unlooked for.  We will suffer along the way, but we will learn from that suffering. To live sheltered and protected all the time is actually much riskier, especially when we are responsible for others.
 
As has been recently posted elsewhere on the Watch (and as Donaldson has said), the Worm carries the seeds of the Land’s destruction.  It needs to, since the Land is alive, with all its possibilities, including despair.  We too carry the seeds of hope and despair in ourselves.   The yin and the yang.  From our own sufferings and weaknesses, we have developed a power to desecrate, and a “power to preserve”.   We can't become more complete humans if we are just walking around like zombies, all innocent and pure (Elohim?), without experiencing anything real, even if it's not all good.   We have to learn that suffering causes us to grow.  So we have to grow up!  

TC has taken that journey, starting out by believing that hope was useless because of all the rough cards he was dealt, and so he thought he needed to be numb to everything and everyone, deny responsibility for anything.  The Land allowed him to experience the cost of that stance.  Eventually, he comes to discover that, despite his perceived unworthiness, he is truly admired, valued, respected, relied upon, and even loved.  So he decides he must respond.  He didn’t have all the answers, but he could respond to what was in front of him, take a stand, “bear what must be borne”, and trust to the rest, to friends, to the unexpected, and “betimes some wonder”.  

Whether the Land was real or not, whether one’s life doesn’t figure to add up to much in the grand scheme of things, we are still responsible for our choices, and we leave the rest to the Creator, and then “we can’t be blamed”.

[TheFallen]

Peter, big question and one that has multiple possible answers. I'll keep my view uncharacteristically ( ) short.

As I've already said elsewhere, my opinion on the message matches V's - it's a humanistic one that doesn't rely upon any metaphysical externals. It's a development on from the Oracle of Delphi's nosce te ipsum ("know thyself"). It's about an acceptance of and crucially engagement with one's darker side, which, as V puts it well, is an essential part of everybody and which can provide energy/power, if properly channelled and controlled.

Shades of Jungian individuation yet again and my Star Trek "The Enemy Within"" post

[ozrics]

On board with you both, fallen and don, my eldest son took his own life 3 years ago, aged 20 suffering from depression. Many many hours of serious contemplation have ensued. I'll pen some more thoughts on this topic when I'm home from work, in particular how I think tcotc can be used as a tool to help mental illness.

[wayfriend]

"Man is an effective passion."

Everything Donaldson says boils down to this.

I could say a lot more, but that's what I got right now.

[peter]

In the face of your sad post ozrics I am almost loath to comment. You see, I agree that one [in fact the most obvious] message we seem to be expected to take from the Chrons is the 'embrace your inner despiser' one; come to terms with it/him and become whole. TheFallen and V., both of whose opinions I have massive respect for, refer to it above, and it appears frequently in the other topics and pages of the Watch. The trouble is - it just doesn't accord with my experience of life. [nb it seems common in the Chrons, as on the Watch to conflate despair and despite into a 'continuum' and this again I do not accept - they are two distinct things, the one possibly morphing into the other over time, but nevertheless different] Now if I take the metaphor of Foul and take it to be the 'dark side of me' [ie the nasty cruel part that could easily sucumb to acts of badness and malice] I don't see that it should be embraced at all. Rather I see that it should be fettered; chained and restrained such that it's slightest hint of expression is crushed out of existance long before it ever reaches the surface and translates itself into the tragedy of irreversible action. How does one embrace ones dark limbic soul and still keep such a beast under controll; better I say to, by main force, drown it in a sea of love and compassion than feed it by giving it the oxygen of expression.

[Interesting side point; In looking up the word 'didactic' {to ensure I was not making a complete fool of myself} I cae across the following definition in my 'Collins Dictionary': "3. (of works of art or literature) containing a political or moral message to which aesthetic considerations are subordinated."]

[Savor Dam]

SRD has repeatedly said in the GI that he is a storyteller and not a polemicist. On that basis, unless we want to be so bold as to contradict his explicit denial, I don't think we can say that there is a message he is trying to impart...at least not at the expense of the story.

[Vraith]

Well, peter, I agree that despair and despite are not a "continuum."
despite is not a degree of despair, something you might slip into; it is a response/reaction to the state of despair [other responses/reactions are possible].

OTOH...if you chain, suppress, cage, attempt to crush your despite, you will only succeed in limiting your life, or...possibly...completely losing control and exploding into a despiser, as IT chains, suppresses, cages, crushes the other parts of you.

No, the key is something like the self-defense cliches of becoming one with your opponent and using their own acts/energies against them.
Saying no, or never to your despite is to limit your whole life...little good will come of it. Don't tell it no, just make it mind its manners.
I want to say:
Despite despite [in the several ways that reads], create, do good.
And also:
In spite of despite, connected to above, feel spite for despite, but too, note the attachment of "in spite" to "inspire"
Breathe it in AND use it, open to awe and vision.

EDITED to add: on didactic...yes, and folk have said that about Chron's before. That's one of the core things within Z's criticisms I think [though I don't recall if he's used the word it seems implied] Someone somewhere has argued at length that they're even polemical.

[TheFallen]

Peter, I hear what you're saying, but...

SRD's point seems to be thus:

There is no point denying that, as humans, we all have a negative aspect to our psyche... a side prone to despite. It's actually a necessary part of us - it's what makes us human. More than that, rather than denying such, it is in fact crucial to acknowledge its existence, in order to be able to control it.

The darker side of ourselves actually has aspects to it that, when properly channelled, are both useful and efficacious - back to that Star Trek episode again, which really is thematically a very good analogy. Remember that it was only and specifically via the knowledge and power gained from his assimilation of LF that TC was able to rebuild the world. And power is what makes things happen - for bad and for good... it just depends upon how one wields it.

That's a very SRD theme - power being guilt, or more corrdctly, a capacity to power brings a possibility of guilt, dependant on the uses to which power is brought. But then again, pure innocence is no alternative; it's ineffectual - it's powerless and as such does not and indeed cannot accomplish anything at all. Plus of course, only the guilty (i.e. those with power) can be saved... or indeed save.

It's that yin and yang thing I've mentioned elsewhere, water and fire, creator and destroyer, soft and hard... the place to exist is at the fulcrum, in balance and so in harmony with such polarised aspects of our humanity. I am going to have to say it again - to acknowledge and thus harness all facets of one's humanity is to become a fully rounded and mature individual - one that's neither in denial, nor powerless. Jung called this culmination of psychological development - which he viewed as crucial - 'individuation'.

Now I'm not saying that I personally buy into the entirety of the above or see a total relevance of such school of thought to my own personal existence... but I'm pretty sure that it's the core of SRD's metaphysical view which he lays out before us in TCoTC.

Oh and I have to add that, regardless of what SRD may have said a few years back in the GI, or what he thought he was, the Last Chrons really are didactic, with allegory over-riding narrative.

[Savor Dam]

I recognize the viewpoint in your last sentence, TF. I can even see the truth in it.

Come June, I would like to hear SRD explain how he squares all those assertions that his work is not polemic in nature with what the LCs appear to be...but I am not going to be the one to ask.

[wayfriend]

SRD has repeatedly said in the GI that he is a storyteller and not a polemicist. On that basis, unless we want to be so bold as to contradict his explicit denial, I don't think we can say that there is a message he is trying to impart...at least not at the expense of the story.

You know, I thought about bringing that up, and didn't ...

It's clear that the Chronicles are filled with lessons about personal fulfillment that the characters learn. I don't think that anyone could disagree with that.

So it can be really hard to see where Donaldson is not a polemicist.

Nevertheless, I do agree he's not one. And I think that this is so because I believe his philosophies are imparted to serve the story. I believe that Donaldson believes in them himself, and I believe that, because he believes in them, he can construct a meaningful story with them.

But I also believe that even Donaldson knows that they are notions, not lifestyles. They are one way of looking at things, a way that perhaps we need to be poked and prodded into noticing, a way that has value. But Donaldson doesn't, won't, go so far as to say 'Go and live your life this way'.

That's not a cop out. It's a recognition of goals. Polemics is a task freighted with responsibilities which he probably has no wish to undertake. He writes stories; he's not interested in shaping society, or producing better humans, or healing the emotionally ill.

Can the Chronicle's inspire us? Absolutely. Do they tell us how to live? No.

Can we enumerate what those lessons are? Absolutely. Does that make Donaldson a polemicist? No.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

[Savor Dam]

Well said, Wayfriend.

I also think that one of the reasons that SRD is so emphatic about telling us over and over that his intent and his works are not polemic is rooted in his upbringing. That experience colors and informs who he is very deeply; while there are many values he absorbed and accepted, there are many others - including the condemnatory and proscriptive tendencies of the particular flavor of fundamentalist missionary culture he grew up in - that he wants to distance himself from.

Just as many of us vow to raise our children in ways different from our own parents' practices...then find our parents words coming out of our mouths, SRD may have more of the influence of his youth in his art than he may have intended.

[lurch]

...I " learned" that indeed, a Epic Fantasy can rise to The ART of Literature standards. ...and SRD taught the lesson very well.

[Dondarion]

Ozrics, my heart aches for you.  Be well and whole, and know you are prayed for.  

To me, whether SRD is a polemicist, or just a story teller with some useful notions and truisms, or whether indeed he is (unintentionally perhaps) imparting on us a model code to live by, it's of no real matter.  Joy is in the ears that hear.  And I don't think SRD would disagree if I were to suggest that his tale offers the potential to affect the reader in a deep and meaningful way.

I agree with Peter.  While I might certainly have to accept the existence and potential for despite, the capacity to despair, it does not follow that I must allow it to coexist within me, as if to make room for it.   I can and should reject it ultimately, since it deserves nothing but rejection as something designed to destroy, not build up.  I believe that despite originates from without, not within.   Yes, it will get in, but we are given the ability to learn that we have the capacity to harness it, to not let it eat us alive (like the Worm). We certainly do need to know and accept that it is there, lurking if you will, but we must also know that it need not rule us, and by gum we can keep it that way.  And we are confident that this can be accomplished, specifically because of our experiences, our sufferings, and our resulting changed perceptions.

The Chronicles was a story that showed me how that process can work.   It may not have been the author's purpose, but it was a life lesson for me nonetheless.

[TheFallen]

Well said, Wayfriend.

I also think that one of the reasons that SRD is so emphatic about telling us over and over that his intent and his works are not polemic is rooted in his upbringing. That experience colors and informs who he is very deeply; while there are many values he absorbed and accepted, there are many others - including the condemnatory and proscriptive tendencies of the particular flavor of fundamentalist missionary culture he grew up in - that he wants to distance himself from.

Just as many of us vow to raise our children in ways different from our own parents' practices...then find our parents words coming out of our mouths, SRD may have more of the influence of his youth in his art than he may have intended.

I think that's well-observed, SD. Ignoring my issues with the message overpowering the cohesiveness of the narrative, I'd absolutely agree that TCoTC is a profoundly non-religious (as opposed to irreligious) work. As I've said above, it's humanistic - according to SRD, the answers to the challenges and issues of our existence are solely and exclusively to be found within oneself. There is no worth or usefulness in setting one's faith in an external deity... even if one exists. Or perhaps more properly put, even if the reader buys into the separate external existence of an ochre-robed creator, that creator's only function is as a primum mobile - he has no power to influence any events whatsoever within his creation.

At this point, I'm reminded again of the quote in Zara's sig that reads:

Meaning is created internally by each individual in each specific life: any attempt at *meaning* which relies on some kind of external superstructure (God, Satan, the Creator, the Worm, whatever) for its substance misses the point (I mean the point of my story).

...which pretty much makes blatantly clear SRD's views on where true meaning in life is to be found... and it's certainly not in any belief in, or reliance upon, any external powers or deities.

So yes, I'd whole-heartedly concur that TCoTC lays out a philosophy that is at most deist (though it's more than arguable that it's nigh-on atheistic), but in all events certainly determinedly humanistic. As such, as you say SD, it represents a very vehement counter-reaction to the "condemnatory and proscriptive tendencies of the particular flavor of fundamentalist missionary culture he grew up in" (nicely phrased, btw).

Of course this doesn't necessitate TCoTC not being polemical in nature - it's just that the core of the work's polemic runs entirely counter to the one that was attempted to be ingrained into SRD during his upbringing.

[Zarathustra]

I recognize the viewpoint in your last sentence, TF. I can even see the truth in it.

Come June, I would like to hear SRD explain how he squares all those assertions that his work is not polemic in nature with what the LCs appear to be...but I am not going to be the one to ask.

Don't worry, I've already asked him.

I've highlighted what I take to be the most important parts of his answer:

Mr. Donaldson,

You have insisted repeatedly that you are not a polemicist; instead, you write a story for its own sake, because it moves or excites you in some way. But this strikes me as misleading, because what excites you is necessarily entangled with deeper issues like French existentialism (as you've mentioned above). So I'm guessing that what passes for exciting to Mr. Donaldson goes a lot deeper than what most people would describe as an exciting story. And from reading others like me in this forum, I assume lots of us are reading your work for this very reason, for that underlying depth which gives your characters their meaning, their relevance, and their emotional power. What makes your characters real is that their journeys touch upon "what it means to be human" another description you've given for your writing.

But isn't this exactly what existentialism is? An account of our being-in-the-world? A description of "the human condition"? Life, death, freewill, our roles as our own lawgiver/enforcer/judge (as Nietzsche might say). If "what it means to be human" is that deeper level upon which your stories are grounded, then perhaps you would consider "existential metaphor" if not "allegory" as a description of what you do? Or "existential fantasy?"

I'm not really trying to find a label for you. I just feel that in an effort to resist that particular label (polemicist), you misleadingly diminish the part of your work that so many of us find unique and epiphanic.

So I suppose my question is: do you REALLY think that your creative impulses can be explained in terms of pursuing an exciting story, or is this just a simplified version you offer to stave off more confusion and misplaced assumptions?

If (as you've said here) there are conscious and subconscious parts to our freewill, then this deeper level of significance, which leaks into your stories, is just as much your choice as your stated reasons for writing them. Your passion is obviously under your control. I'm confused why you distance yourself from what it "inadvertently" produces in your writing.



<sigh> This is all so much more complicated than I ever wanted it to be. You make a number of perfectly valid points. And yet there are some insidiously misleading assumptions at work, many of which I've inadvertently fostered.

In this interview and elsewhere, I've made a number of statements about my work which (apparently) justify your observations. But there are a couple of critical points here which tend to get lost in the discussion (I mean lost by me as well as by other people). 1) Every statement I've ever made that bears on the "content" of my work was made in retrospect; looking back on the work after it was done. In other words, it was made from my perspective as a reader, not from my perspective as the writer. 2) Every statement I've ever made that bears on the "content" of my work was made in response to a question. In other words, it was elicited from a perspective external to my own. Oh, and there may be a third critical point here as well: most of the statements I've made that bear on the "content" of my work were/are intended to apply to art/literature/fantasy in general rather than to my work in particular.

In this context, yes, I really do think that my creative impulses can be explained in terms of pursuing an exciting story. And yes, OF COURSE, who I am as a person profoundly affects what I find exciting. And in addition, my training as a student of literature affects both what I find exciting and how I talk about that excitement. Nevertheless I must insist: I DO NOT HAVE A MESSAGE. Certainly not in the sense that "allegory" implies. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, teach you anything, demonstrate anything, or advocate for anything.

My *message,* if I have one, is simply that good stories are worth reading. Why? Because, in my experience, they expand us. How? By engaging us in extremely specific individuals experiencing extremely specific dilemmas which we would not have encountered otherwise, but which (precisely because they are not us) can increase the range of what we're able to understand and (perhaps) empathize with. Polemics, by definition, is about generalization. Story-telling, by definition, is entirely consumed in specifics.

So you could--if you were so inclined--say that my stance as a story-teller is one of "existential humanism." But that is not at all the same thing as saying that my stories are *about* existential humanism. My stories are not *about* anything except my characters and their emotions; their dilemmas and their responses to those dilemmas.

The observations that we can make about a particular story, or about stories in general, after we have experienced them have the potential to be very educational: they can continue the process of expansion. But they also have the potential to be very misleading because they can confuse the observation with the experience.

Apparently I've made that mistake more often than I realized.(03/18/2005)

I think the distinction he makes between specific and general is the crucial point here (one captured in my signature quote from SRD, but probably the most overlooked part of that quote: specific, individual). Again, this distinction reminds me of an existentialist--Heidegger--who makes a similar distinction between "ontic" and "ontological." The former is a specific manifestation of the latter, i.e. a single person living his life, who unavoidably manifests the general structures of reality in his own being (because he participates in those structures), even if he's not usually aware of his life as ontological, because he is consumed in the specifics of his particular day to day being.

So Donaldson's characters unavoidably manifest general principles about "what it means to be human," because Donaldson is a perceptive writer who creates realistic characters. But the characters themselves aren't interested in exploring what it means to be human, they're just dealing with their individual lives: their trials, their loves, their obstacles. In doing so, they exhibit deeper structures or patterns through which many different individual lives could also be lived, but this is no more intentional or "the point" than (for instance) wearing a green shirt to make a point about color in general. While we can look at that shirt and ponder the nature of color (Primary attitribute? Secondary? subjective qualia? Objective frequency of light waves?), it's probably just an expression of the particular person's wardrobe preferences.

Now, I believe this is the point Donaldson is making, but I still don't necessarily believe it. I think it's impossible for the characters themselves not to notice the symbolic, universal nature of their experience in the Chronicles. You don't meld with a world's Evil Overlord by realizing it's an externalization of yourself without being at least a little bit curious or cognizant of the metaphysical implications of such a realization.

[TheFallen]

So you could--if you were so inclined--say that my stance as a story-teller is one of "existential humanism." But that is not at all the same thing as saying that my stories are *about* existential humanism. My stories are not *about* anything except my characters and their emotions; their dilemmas and their responses to those dilemmas.

The observations that we can make about a particular story, or about stories in general, after we have experienced them have the potential to be very educational: they can continue the process of expansion. But they also have the potential to be very misleading because they can confuse the observation with the experience.

Apparently I've made that mistake more often than I realized.(03/18/2005)

So Donaldson's characters unavoidably manifest general principles about "what it means to be human," because Donaldson is a perceptive writer who creates realistic characters. But the characters themselves aren't interested in exploring what it means to be human, they're just dealing with their individual lives: their trials, their loves, their obstacles. In doing so, they exhibit deeper structures or patterns through which many different individual lives could also be lived, but this is no more intentional or "the point" than (for instance) wearing a green shirt to make a point about color in general. While we can look at that shirt and ponder the nature of color (Primary attitribute? Secondary? subjective qualia? Objective frequency of light waves?), it's probably just an expression of the particular person's wardrobe preferences.

Now, I believe this is the point Donaldson is making, but I still don't necessarily believe it. I think it's impossible for the characters themselves not to notice the symbolic, universal nature of their experience in the Chronicles. You don't meld with a world's Evil Overlord by realizing it's an externalization of yourself without being at least a little bit curious or cognizant of the metaphysical implications of such a realization.

Heh... cogent question, interesting answer and even more interesting analysis of such response, Z.

I'm in agreement with you. Okay, I'll fully buy into SRD's avowing of "existential humanism", because, as I stated in my post above, I think that philosophy's pretty redolent throughout TCoTC and especially in the LCs.

Having said that, I think SRD then goes on to be (quite possibly unwittingly) sparing with the truth in his answer that you quoted above. He's almost ignoring or denying the hand of the author as puppetmaster (for want of a better word) in all this. I'd go further than you and paraphrase thus:

An author doesn't create a "story" that culminates in the lead character melding with a world's Evil Overlord by realizing it's an externalization of himself, unless it's an exposition of the author's own metaphysical views.

SRD cannot expect us to buy that he's just a chronicler of a perfectly normal and natural progression of specific events that happen to a unique individual, namely TC. He can't possibly expect us to accept that the resolutions of all three sets of chrons - and especially the culmination of the LCs - are only significant to the main protagonist and as such have no wider applicability or meaning to anyone else. That's the most arrant and trite of BS in my view.

SRD is the author, fercrissakes. He's the narrative creator... it's his cosmos, his characters, his plot and his resolution. To imply that sure he created such, but that none of it was informed or coloured by his own philosophy is frankly ridiculous. To do so is effectively to deny the existence of the symbolic at all - sure SRD portrays TC as a specific individual, but of course his progression as described to us is symbolic as much as it is literal - if not more so. It therefore carries a general message, and one that reveals the author's own views on "what it is to be human".

So no, I don't believe SRD's answer either. I don't buy into his claim that his stories are about nothing more than his "characters and their emotions; their dilemmas and their responses to those dilemmas". TCoTC are very much more than a simplistic and monofaceted, single-levelled narrative and this is fully intentional on the part of the author. The works are obviously allegorical - but as soon as any author embarks upon allegory, he is inevitably bound to be trying to inform his readership as to his own Weltanschauung, his own ontological views. That equally unavoidably makes an allegorical work such as the entire TCoTC more, rather than less, polemical, no matter what the author may maintain.

I'm keenly interested when SRD says "The observations that we can make about a particular story, or about stories in general, after we have experienced them... ...also have the potential to be very misleading because they can confuse the observation with the experience". To me, that speaks to the very heart of the issue that I have with the LCs. It's a statement of authorial intent that I agree with - I've said elsewhere that the most skilfully constructed of allegories work simultaneously on both the levels of narrative and meaning: the reader is emotionally caught up in the narrative (the "experience", if you like), while the subliminal level of meaning (the "observation", if you like) percolates through at the same time. To me, this is what SRD achieved so successfully in both the First and the Second Chrons... the melding of narrative and meaning was seamless. The fourth wall did not get broken. And IMO, his quoted comment shows that this was indeed his intention.

However, the LCs do - to me at least - lack sufficient narrative cohesiveness and credible realism of such to preserve the fourth wall. I find them narratively a bit stilted and forced and thus redolent with Verfremdungseffekten - much like a Brechtian play (although Brecht was quite deliberate with his smashing of the 4th wall). Even if unintentional on the part of SRD, I strongly feel the hand of the puppetmaster author throughout the LCs and specifically in TLD. So precisely because of that, I'm emotionally distanced from the narrative strands of plot and characters - the former's less believable and the latter are less empathisable with, because the author's manipulation of both is to me pretty overt. So I'm emotionally divorced from the "experience" and am thus only left with an intellectual appreciation of the philosophy, or with "observation", if you'd rather.

I'll take it on good faith that SRD was being honest about his belief and intention as a novelist back in 2005, when he gave that answer. However, 8 years later, he's either changed his mind or unwittingly failed in his intent. The LCs are overtly didactic, if not polemical. And they are absolutely intended as allegorical, symbolically pointing the way to general truth - well, a general truth about existence as believed by the author.