Ownership

[lurch]

At the back bone of the Chronicles and made even clearer in the The Last Chronicles is the idea of Ownership; taking Ownership of ones plight in life and thus taking command to change the nature of ones life, ones plight. TC learns to own Leprosy rather than be devoured by the despair leprosy brings.. Linden divorces herself from the life her parents brought her self up in, and searches and finds a life she can take ownership in..Lindens decided to Own her future, own the responsibility of it rather than being a mere subject of Fate. She took Ownership of Her future, and thus, Owns Who She Is.

Linden suffers mightily for her decision to Own Up. Interesting, like TC,,how Linden is the target for derision, rather than the resolution of a offensive plight. Jerry's plight is secondary to the ELOHIM'S FEARS of what Linden just might do in her Ownership. Linden is dissatisfied and goes at it alone in her Ownership. The right thing to do if one is dissatisfied with a situation in life or maybe, if one is dissatisfied with a work of Art. Take ownership of your dissatisfaction,,and make the changes. TC believed he could first conquer out right the despair of Leprosy. Then he found out he could rise above it, go to some lofty where else, away from the despair of Leprosy . Finally he realizes he has to take ownership of Leprosy,,in order to control it, in order to manage the despair of it. Despair is a human trait. If you are Human, you can have despair. Linden, thru taking ownership , rather than being the child her parents molded, finds Love that she had never experienced and is guided by it to the end of story. ..They took ownership of their failures, their dissatisfaction, their unsatisfactory situations,,and instead of blaming the towns folk, or any other scapegoats for their malcontent, TC and Linden took Ownership inorder to search and find a Hopeful future.

How is it that taking Ownership is such a struggle.? As Jerry finds out, indeed, its a solitary endeavor. Yet we need help along the way. Donaldson likes the paradox and there is one. The obstacles that have to be overcome grow out of that paradox, grow out of that conflict. One way to apply Ownership is change that paradox into a parable...change the way the obstacle is perceived..as in the Lurker, for example.

There are all sorts of padding and cushions provided to soften the hard blows encountered by taking responsibility, by taking Ownership. Linden repeats the refrain to Jerry about ...we are not our failures...That takes the sharp out of the unseen stiletto..Jerry finally realizes Compassion..taking his small self centered linear perspective of the World hes in and fills it out to a spherical connected whole view. So, the author offers solutions to the problems and doesn't just belly ache about the angst of being a teenager.. He Takes Ownership.

[peter]

Alas Lurch, in the eyes of others that is often all we are - our failures. The skill is to relise that there are three 'you's'. The 'you' you think you are, the 'you others think you are - and thirdly and most importantly the 'you' you actually are. Taking ownership in the sense you talk about above is the skill of moving the first and third of these three types as close together as possible.

[wayfriend]

"Ownership" does seem important as I read it. The concept of "responsibility" appears as a central plot point several times.

We have Covenant's responsibility for Joan, and we have his responsibility for Elena. In contrast/foil, we have Linden's not-responsibility for Liand and Anele. Kevin's spiritual meeting with his ancestors was all about what he was and was not responsible for, with overtones directed clearly at the Rousing of the Worm.

In broader terms, we have the responsibility to keep on trying even when all is hopeless, the responsibility of everyone in the Land to partake in the effort of salvation, the Masters stealing the ability of the people of the Land to be so responsible, and ultimately the responsibility to ensure that beauty and truth shall not pass utterly.

[lurch]

I like the perception of the Masters stealing the ownership of the future from the people of the Land. And the Elohim didn't seem to mind. Great metaphor on all sorts of levels; from how we think to what we think.

Of course, Lord Fouls wants ownership as well...And he doesn't even offer a quid pro quo like Satan does..Foul uses all the "other means" of subterfuge to get owned..Like, he can't go up to a person and say ,,Hello. I'm Despair Please allow me to posses you for the rest of your life slowly driving you insane and bringing to final ruin as you learn the utter depths of self loathing and defeat. hhhmmm..a business card of Lord Foul's might say..." Yes!, You Are Your Failures!..Lets Talk!..no appointment necessary.

[lurch]

..there is a line Linden remembers from Berek Halfhand,,He may be freed only by one who is compelled by rage, and contemptuous of consequence.." Yea, taking Ownership may require that level of being upset with the status quo..That level of need is easily seen in TC as he walked into town to pay his bill, and in Linden as she tried to stop the kidnapping of Jeremiah. ..That extreme rage was ,,,of course,,at the roots of the birth of Surrealism..Upon witnessing slaughter of humans on a Grand scale during WW1, never before seen by Europeans, and the absolute stupid antics of the supposed leaders of the World that got the World War started, ..a movement was started out of rage and was and remains contemptuous of consequences,,,Afterall,,what can be worse than mankind blowing itself up?

Its the narrators worry,,," Or he may have seen the Land's doom in all three of them.."...Theres a joke ..a fine one at that...The narrator doesn't "get" the metaphor, the extra reality, the Sur- Real of this tale,,the one hes telling..The metaphor of that is ...Surrealism is unique to each individual..because,, Surrealism is about the uniqueness of each individual. Surrealism is more of a verb than a noun.. Doom??, The Land's Doom..??? The epilogue showed a restored to a new beginning Land,,the only Doom was the Old Land.. rather,,Revolutionary....but its a individual revolution, change,,that only can happen when rage with the Status Quo is sufficient to motivate, to take Ownership.