RE-READING THE ENTIRE CHRONICLES

[Zarathustra]

Even discounting all of the other textual and thematic clues in the LCs, it certainly seems hard to account for the use "Providence" in any other way.

Vraith had an excellent point: wonder is wrought. Who wrought those wonders? The characters themselves.

I'm not sure how much you know about Donaldson's personal views and upbringing. I think the evidence (i.e. his own statements about his life, his beliefs, his books as well as the text itself) shows clearly that he was intending to take religious concepts and turn them on their head. If you've ever read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, you'd see that this is the same literary and philosophical strategy of Nietzsche: to reclaim 'heavenly' values for the earth, to take traditional Christian virtues and show how they are vices in the way they are traditionally used (i.e. life-denying, world-denying). His purpose is to show how humans can develop their own values and morality in the absence of an external source validating them or giving them to us.

Donaldson takes religious tropes and shows how they are evil (e.g. the preacher's sermon in TWL), reinterpreting them in a way that requires no god, because he gives them a human meaning. So 'providence' can be something we create and give to each other. It can be a way we interpret reality, something we choose to see in the world as our own attitude, not something given to us by any god.

Donaldson says interpreting the Chronicles based on something like god misses the point of his story. That's not my words, it's his. You can cling to the interpretation that backs up your own bias if you want, but he's telling you explicitly: you're missing the point of his story.

He also said this in the GI:

So you could--if you were so inclined--say that my stance as a story-teller is one of "existential humanism."

Wikipedia says this:

Existential humanism is a concept that can be understood in several different ways, each tending to validate the human subject as struggling for self-knowledge and self-responsibility.[1]

And this:

Existentialism ... philosophical thinking begins with the human subject —not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.[5] In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[6] [7][8]

And this:

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism, and today "Humanism" typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency, and looking to science instead of religious dogma in order to understand the world.[2]

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Even discounting all of the other textual and thematic clues in the LCs, it certainly seems hard to account for the use "Providence" in any other way.

Vraith had an excellent point: wonder is wrought. Who wrought those wonders? The characters themselves.

That's the mysterious thing about Providence. It works in cooperation with, rather than as a replacement for or in contradiction to, Free Will.

————————————————————————

I'm not sure how much you know about Donaldson's personal views and upbringing.

I had suspected that he must have been raised a Calvinist long before I had gotten confirmation of it. Not in my first reading, which was in high school, and such issues were far from my mind. However, rereading in the early 90's, I really noticed it. His animosity toward Calvinism just seemed to bleed from the page (in the 2nd Chrons as well).

So, I think that he wanted to take Reformo-Enlightenment Christianity, more specifically Calvinism, and reject it. Good on him. I'll drink to that. 500 years of deformation, not only of that which is uniquely Christian, but of Nature as well, is legacy that I vehemently oppose.

That doesn't change my reading though. It seems patent that SDR is not a practicing Christian. So be it. But AFAICT, he's obviously open to the Dharma. And I'll drink to that, too.

[Zarathustra]

That's the mysterious thing about Providence. It works in cooperation with, rather than as a replacement for or in contradiction to, Free Will.

I suppose there are lots of mysterious things about superstitious concepts. That's one of the problems with them ... any criticism can be dismissed by recourse to "mystery."

The point wasn't about whether or not it's compatible with freewill, but its source. If it comes from something external to humans, then it's not what Donaldson is talking about.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

That's the mysterious thing about Providence. It works in cooperation with, rather than as a replacement for or in contradiction to, Free Will.

I suppose there are lots of mysterious things about superstitious concepts. That's one of the problems with them ... any criticism can be dismissed by recourse to "mystery."

The point wasn't about whether or not it's compatible with freewill, but its source. If it comes from something external to humans, then it's not what Donaldson is talking about.

If you say so. Then again, I'm not the one interpreting SDR's use of "Providence" in such a toothlessly nominal and reductive manner, as when, earlier, you wrote: "'providence' can be something we create and give to each other. It can be a way we interpret reality, something we choose to see in the world as our own attitude, not something given to us by any god."

If there's one thing which thoroughly suffuses SDR's writing, it's the centrality of Mystery. Makes me wonder just who's the one "clinging to the interpretation that backs up their own bias."

[Vraith]

If there's one thing which thoroughly suffuses SDR's writing, it's the centrality of Mystery. Makes me wonder just who's the one "clinging to the interpretation that backs up their own bias."

Mystery there may well be...
But it is explicit from the beginning that Divine interference/action won't save the world.
CAN't save the world, actually.
And the end if pretty explicit, too: the Metaphysical is held and used by the physical. Not the other way around. And that's why the world continues to live. And the world will die when that stops being the case.
You're free to have any interpretation you want, of course...but unless you mean "Providence" as simply "a bit of luck tossed on top of all their efforts" you're relying on many things specifically contrary to the text.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

If there's one thing which thoroughly suffuses SDR's writing, it's the centrality of Mystery. Makes me wonder just who's the one "clinging to the interpretation that backs up their own bias."

Mystery there may well be...
But it is explicit from the beginning that Divine interference/action won't save the world.
CAN't save the world, actually.

Agreed. But notice that Free Will can't save the world, either. And that hits at the heart of the Mystery, right there. The eye of the Paradox. Freedom and Providence are joined at the hip. It is only the intersection of the two that is salvific.

[Zarathustra]

Wosbald, if you stick to my actual words, instead of the grasping at whatever vague point you think allows you to score a point, you'll notice that I never said that mystery isn't part of the Chronicles. With each post, you keep changing the goalposts. We weren't arguing whether mystery is part of the Chronicles. You were using mystery to square a theological interpretation with a concept that's used in humanist terms in the Chronicles. Just because I criticize your use of mystery in this way doesn't mean that I've said anything at all about Donaldson's usage of mystery.

Again, we weren't talking about free will. The fact that you think the theological concept of providence can be compatible with free will begs the question. It's a response that assumes the very thing in question, namely, whether a story told from a humanist perspective can be viewed in terms of external frameworks like god. Given that the author explicitly tells us that any external framework beyond a purely human meaning misses the point of his story, I think this question has been answered.

The world was saved by the characters without any help from an outside source. Wild magic (i.e. free will, passion, personal agency, etc.) + Staff of Law (i.e. control, discipline, respect for physical laws) + Jer's capacity for creating structures enabled the characters to save the world themselves. We have everything we need. Our passion/free will exercised with control in harmony with natural laws allows us to make or fabricate wonders. We grant ourselves and each other grace.

I'm curious ... where does internalizing Lord Foul (Covenant), learning from a Raver (Jeremiah), and freeing a Bane (Linden) fit into your interpretation? The characters weren't born again or cleansed of their sins. They didn't repent, in fact they embraced their mistakes and their destructive side as essential parts of their humanity. Their redemption didn't come from accepting an external authority, but from accepting themselves, which necessarily includes those parts which aren't holy. Lord Foul is never beaten completely, he is internalized and contained. Redemption is an act of authentic acceptance of life as it is (which includes things that aren't beautiful), while paradoxically fighting to make sure it retains its beauty. It is not a triumph over death or physical existence or evil. The Worm and the Despiser still exist, "resting." Contained. The characters don't retreat to a Heavenly paradise. They make a physical home in the remade Land, a place which still contains wounds and flaws and death and evil. Theological questions are brought up in this journey, but the answers aren't theological.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Wosbald, if you stick to my actual words, instead of the grasping at whatever vague point you think allows you to score a point, you'll notice that I never said that mystery isn't part of the Chronicles. With each post, you keep changing the goalposts. We weren't arguing whether mystery is part of the Chronicles. You were using mystery to square a theological interpretation with a concept that's used in humanist terms in the Chronicles. Just because I criticize your use of mystery in this way doesn't mean that I've said anything at all about Donaldson's usage of mystery.

Again, we weren't talking about free will. The fact that you think the theological concept of providence can be compatible with free will begs the question. It's a response that assumes the very thing in question, namely, whether a story told from a humanist perspective can be viewed in terms of external frameworks like god. Given that the author explicitly tells us that any external framework beyond a purely human meaning misses the point of his story, I think this question has been answered.

I've already explained why Providence is specifically not an "external superstructure" (not even being a theological concept, but rather, a philosophical one), which neatly explains the Creator's disappearance as a distinct character.

"Providence" is used. Fact. That needs to be explained from within the story and without emasculating Providence simply because one thinks that the author "couldn't have meant it".

It seems to me like you're neutering the role of Providence (and thus, the impact and coherence of the narrative [something which even understanding Providence as "Luck" wouldn't do]) simply you think the un-belabored understanding of Providence to be at odds with a comment made in an interview.

Let's assume that Providence is Providence.

And let's assume that SDR is consistent with himself.

Now, where does that put the story?

[Vraith]

but rather, a philosophical one), which neatly explains the Creator's disappearance as a distinct character.
Let's assume that Providence is Providence.

And let's assume that SDR is consistent with himself.

Now, where does that put the story?

You know what else neatly explains the Creator's disappearance?
The fact that if he interferes, the world is destroyed. The saving fails.

Anyway, let's assume providence is providence:

the protective care of God or of nature as a spiritual power.

God or nature as providing protective or spiritual care.

timely preparation for future eventualities.

The first two are right out---outside interference/metaphysics/contradicts the text.

The last is people making it of, by, and for themselves. Wrought by people, their acts.
There may perhaps be a mysterious/mystic force or tendency in the Land that, in the battle between those working towards life and those working towards death, favors the life/good guys.
But, if there is, it is one that emerges from the acts, the goals, the purposes of the peoples.
It does not exist except where it is created by the peoples.
That's not neutering providence, that is generating it, making it so.
It's not emasculating it, it is making it potent.
[[I'm tempted to tie it to other conversations and say that, if anything, providence here is the sum total of the will and intentions of those who want beauty and life]].

[Zarathustra]

I've already explained why Providence is specifically not an "external superstructure" (not even being a theological concept, but rather, a philosophical one), which neatly explains the Creator's disappearance as a distinct character.

But your explanation 'explains' this disappearance in a way that makes his absence a "there all along" presence. Rather than accepting the absence, you're denying it by defining 'absence' in terms of its extreme opposite: ever-present. Just because you've interpreted this as immanent (in-dwelling) rather than transcendent (external superstructure) doesn't mean you're not trying to sneak god in through the back door. Providence, as 'divine intervention,' is most certainly a theological concept. As a student of philosophy, I assure you it's not generally studied as a philosophical concept, except perhaps by Christian philosophers, and it's always in a theological connotation, even if examined with typical philosophical methodologies.

"Providence" is used. Fact.

You know, I'm tired of just taking your word on this. Quote the text where it occurs. Show us the context and page number so we can look it up ourselves.

Do you think Donaldson is a literalist? Do you think it's possible that he could have used a word like "providence" in a more sophisticated way that makes use of the theological connotations of the word--the feeling and religious connotation it evokes--without literally meaning 'divine intervention' as an agent in the story itself (whether immanent or transcendent)? I'll try to look up the GI quotes where he talks about using this very technique. It's one of his standard ways of infusing significance in the text without actually intending to preach or reference literal religious meanings. As you point out, "providential" can mean merely "lucky."

I searched for the word "providence" and "providential" in the GI, which turned only one instance:

Anonymous: Knowing from book jackets that you lived in New Mexico I always envisioned TC living in New Mexico at the beginning of LFB (even though later I think I found out in 1977 you weren't there yet). Why did you move from NJ to NM?


Because I could. NJ was necessity. NM was choice. I fell in love with this region during a providential summer job while I was in college; so when I finally found a publisher and could afford to move, I came here.

(01/19/2010)

There you go ... proof that the author uses this word in his daily speech to mean, "lucky" (unless you think he meant the job was miraculously part of some divine intervention ... and maybe someone like you actually does).

It seems to me like you're neutering the role of Providence (and thus, the impact and coherence of the narrative [something which even understanding Providence as "Luck" wouldn't do]) simply you think the un-belabored understanding of Providence to be at odds with a comment made in an interview.

Using typically religious or theological terms in ways that turn those definitions on their heads is neither emasculating nor neutering. It's something more sophisticated and subtle, a handling of reader expectations in a way that simultaneously makes use of them while also thwarting them.

Let's assume that Providence is Providence.

You do that.

[wayfriend]

I think providence encompasses things provided "as if" by God or nature, surely. They needn't actually be.

I couldn't consider the old healer in Morinmoss as anything but providence. Good example.

Or the appearance of the Ardent. Almost anything that people complain of as deus ex machina can also be called providence if you look at it in a more generous light.

[Zarathustra]

Some relevant GI quotes:

I realize that many major religions are predicated on the idea that God (or some other external force) is going to fix things for us. All we have to do is have faith. But I can't see how that makes sense. If we aren't responsible for the content of our own lives, why do we bother to live at all?

On the other hand, *believing* that someone else is going to fix things for us can give rise to any number of storytelling possibilities.

(07/01/2005)

On the other hand, "religious" themes are omnipresent in my work. In particular, "The Chronicles" are rife with "spiritual interpretations"--and deliberately so. I once heard the writer S. P. Somtow state, "Fantasy is the only valid form of theological inquiry." I agree (although I admit that we could debate the use of the word "only").

...
(08/13/2008)

Note his use of scare quotes around the terms 'religious' and 'spiritual interpretations.' This lets you know he doesn't mean them literally.

I may have mentioned years ago that I once heard the writer/film-maker S. P. Somtow say, "Fantasy is the only valid form of religious inquiry." Or words to that effect. I happen to agree. In fact, I don't see how it's possible to write about people, powers, or events which demonstrably transcend, well, let's call it "consensus reality" without raising religious issues. Surely "transcendence" is the essential subject-matter of religion. Harlan Ellison may well be an atheist (how would *I* know?), but his stories are rife with religious themes. However, the key word here (at least for our present purposes) is "inquiry": the posing of questions rather than the formulation of answers. ...
(12/17/2008)

Questions rather than answers. So he's not writing about providence as an over-arching theme (i.e. an answer), but how the question of providence--and the situations which might evoke this question--affects us. Humans might imagine that they need providence, and this shapes us in certain ways (e.g. developing religion and ritual), but there are other answers that are more authentic as we work out our own salvation.

Writing in ways that evoke themes of 'sin and redemption' is as natural as breathing to me. It's bred in my bones. But I don't actually think that way about my writing. I think in terms of reductiveness and dehumanization, affirmation and integrity. However, putting my views in your terms: 'we all have to work out our own salvation, with fear and trembling' (I'm paraphrasing someone, but I can't remember my own source <sigh>). It can't be given to us; so things like ritual and religion are usually (but certainly not always) useless. And to the extent that religion and ritual distract us from the fact that we have to work it out for ourselves, they can be an active hindrance to redemption.

(Meanwhile, if you want to bring things like faith and hope into the discussion, you'll have to define your terms. People often throw those words around in ways that communicate only confusion.)

(03/17/2010)

More evidence that he's using the language of religion, but actually thinking of it in terms of existentialism. Also, evidence of how we can't just take words like 'faith' and 'hope' at face value, because doing so causes confusion (like the one we're discussing now).

Patrick Supeene: Dear Mr. Donaldson:

I have really enjoyed reading the Thomas Covenant books and your short stories. I find your vocabulary astonishing and your descriptions extremely vivid.

I wonder, though, about your use of the word "transubstantiation," in The Runes of the Earth. My understanding is that the term refers to a change in substance that is not accompanied by a change in the accidents. After the consecration during Mass, what was bread and wine still looks, tastes, feels, etc. like bread and wine. The accidents remain, but they have no substance in which to inhere. The substance has become Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Many thanks for the outstanding literature you have produced.


I'm afraid I don't understand your question. By your definition, I've used the word correctly--at least far as I can tell. What's the problem? Is it your contention that the word can only be used in reference to the Christian sacrament of communion? In that case, yes, I've mis-used the word. But I like to think that words can be used as metaphors, or can be extended (in some form) beyond their most literal denotations. That, it seems to me, is part of the glory of language. Why can't the general concept of "incarnating the sacred in the mundane" be applied in contexts that have nothing to do with churches, priests, or even coherent religions?

(03/01/2006)

I can't think of a more perfect example than the last quote. This is what I was talking about in my last post, how he uses the language of religion in a way that subverts its literal meaning. Sure, we could just assume that Donaldson is a literalist and "transubstantiation is transubstantiation," [or "providence is providence"] but that would be doing a disservice to the subtlety and sophistication of this author. And as such, we do a disservice to ourselves in trying to see another person's work of art in the limiting terms of our own beliefs.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I think providence encompasses things provided "as if" by God or nature, surely. They needn't actually be.

I couldn't consider the old healer in Morinmoss as anything but providence. Good example.

Or the appearance of the Ardent. Almost anything that people complain of as deus ex machina can also be called providence if you look at it in a more generous light.

Word.

Thematically in the LCs, Providence is identified in contradistinction (but not in opposition) to Free Will.

And the confluence of Providence and Freedom proleptically illuminates events of the entire series (as you point out in the Morinmoss incident).

And betimes some wonder is wrought to redeem us.

Not "we work some wonder …"

Not "some miraculous intervention interrupts and suspends the time-space continuum to work some wonder …"

Not "the metaphysical constitution of Creation is undone or contradicted to work some wonder …"

But, rather, "some wonder is wrought". A wonderful work that is neither a work of exclusively We nor of exclusively The Other, but instead, is a sort of tertium quid, a work that is a cooperative function of two agents.

[wayfriend]

Thematically in the LCs, Providence is identified in contradistinction (but not in opposition) to Free Will.

I wonder if Betimes some wonder doesn't indicate more of a complimentary relationship. Go as far as you can, hope Providence will bring it the rest of the way. Or maybe I conflate Free Will with Standing Up for What You Believe. Or maybe I am supposed to. Head hurts.

But, rather, "some wonder is wrought". A wonderful work that is neither a work of exclusively We nor of exclusively The Other, but instead, is a sort of tertium quid, a work that is a cooperative function of two agents.

... as I said, the intersection of opportunity with preparedness.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Thematically in the LCs, Providence is identified in contradistinction (but not in opposition) to Free Will.

I wonder if Betimes some wonder doesn't indicate more of a complimentary relationship. Go as far as you can, hope Providence will bring it the rest of the way.

Agreed. I'd say "complimentary" is accurate. I only use "contradistinction" to indicate that the two can be distinguished, even though they can't be dissociated.

[aTOMiC]

Long overdue update.

I am currently about halfway through The Wounded Land and finally making steady progress. There was about a month gap between completing The Illearth War and beginning The Power That Preserves.

I still feel like I have a mountain to climb as The Last Dark gathers dust on my shelf but so far I'm very satisfied that I chose to read the Chronicles in order before experiencing the final book.

[Zarathustra]

... I'm very satisfied that I chose to read the Chronicles in order before experiencing the final book.

That's the way I did it. If nothing else, the final book is good for that.

[Cord Hurn]

I wonder how aTOMic's re-read of the Chronicles is progressing these days...?

[Cybrweez]

I haven't read through this thread yet. I've re-read the first 2 Chronicles (for I think the 4th time), and remembered how much I love them. Particularly struck by the Giants this time thru, just love them as a group. So sad when you get to the end, it's over!

Started RotE week or so ago. I think I read it when it first arrived, but half way in, I have no memory of most of what's going on. I know I haven't opened any of the other 3. I read some comments in Last Chron area long ago, and remember an impression that many didn't like them, I hope that doesn't taint my experience. But immediately, the Haruchai are true to their character, still the same in the Land after all this time. Acting all 1984 and thinking it's for the best. Along w/the Giants, SRD did great job creating these groups (can't think of good word to describe them).

Due to the Masters, the Land hasn't really healed, and that's kind of a bummer. Really hasn't been since what, Illearth War?, that the Land has been the Land.

[Cord Hurn]

I haven't read through this thread yet. I've re-read the first 2 Chronicles (for I think the 4th time), and remembered how much I love them. Particularly struck by the Giants this time thru, just love them as a group. So sad when you get to the end, it's over!

Started RotE week or so ago. I think I read it when it first arrived, but half way in, I have no memory of most of what's going on. I know I haven't opened any of the other 3. I read some comments in Last Chron area long ago, and remember an impression that many didn't like them, I hope that doesn't taint my experience. But immediately, the Haruchai are true to their character, still the same in the Land after all this time. Acting all 1984 and thinking it's for the best. Along w/the Giants, SRD did great job creating these groups (can't think of good word to describe them).

Due to the Masters, the Land hasn't really healed, and that's kind of a bummer. Really hasn't been since what, Illearth War?, that the Land has been the Land.

Well, the natural Earthpower in the Land has been restored to as it was before the Sunbane, with hurtloam and all that present, but you're right in that the Masters have prevented the wood-lore and the stone-lore, let alone Kevin's Lore, from being re-discovered.

Considering that you're reading the Last Chronicles for the first time, Cybrweez, you might want to avoid reading a lot of threads in this forum, for you are in danger of encountering spoilers about the Last Chronicles. That's up to you, of course! Personally, I enjoy the Last Chronicles (especially Fatal Revenant and Against All Things Ending), and am glad that SRD wrote them.


[Edited to correct my spelling of Cybrweez's name. ]