yeah!Lord Foul's Bane Chapters 7 & 8
Moderators: Cord Hurn, danlo, dlbpharmd
Ami, do you really believe that the way an embryo is conceived has effect on the personality of the person that will grow up?amanibhavam wrote:no, because Elena was flawed from birth, and this flaw is the result of the rape imho, of course
That's an excellent question, I think that the guilt that catches up with Covenant when they visit the Ramen, has a major impact on the events that occur later on.vain wrote:Would it have had the same impact? Would many events in the future have transpired if it was mutual?
-pitch
We are who we are - and what we are not, we will never become
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
So, what youre saying is that if Covenant didnt rape her by force, that she would have let him seduce her? Oh, come on. I dont have the exact quote but...doesnt Atiaran say something like..."What you did was wrong w/out love or commitment."? Well, if Lena feels the same, which Im sure she does, then she wouldnt have let him seduce her, after all, theyve only known each other for what, two or three days?
-
Lady Genni
- Ramen
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 9:30 pm
Ok - I know I'm really late chiming in on this one but here goes...
I think the rape of Lena shows the paradox of white gold..."Save or Damn". It shows that TC is capable of doing something really horrible.
Secondly it sets up how the "pure" the people of the land are. You have all of these people making all of these incredible sacrafices for him.
Just my $.02
I think the rape of Lena shows the paradox of white gold..."Save or Damn". It shows that TC is capable of doing something really horrible.
Secondly it sets up how the "pure" the people of the land are. You have all of these people making all of these incredible sacrafices for him.
Spoiler
In TIW he is constantly amazed and upset by the fact that he is forgiven for what he does. In LFB no one outside of Lena's family/village knows about what he did till he was out of the land. By the second book it's common knowledge among the Lords.
Lady Genni
"By the Seven...!"
"By the Seven...!"
-
Guest
-
DEVILSPAWN
-
amanibhavam
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 9:54 am
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Not in our "real" world, no. In the Land, OTOH, I think it is possible. If men are capable of living 2000 years because of a Vow,why would it be impossible for an embryo be affected by the means of its conception?Ami, do you really believe that the way an embryo is conceived has effect on the personality of the person that will grow up?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
love is the shadow that ripens the wine
Languages of Middle-Earth community on Google Plus
Pink Floyd community on Google Plus
love is the shadow that ripens the wine
Languages of Middle-Earth community on Google Plus
Pink Floyd community on Google Plus
-
KaosArcana
I think that Lena WOULD have allowed herself to be seduced
by Covenant. She was already infatuated with him, and by the
idea of being the Queen to his Berek.
Truthfully, though, Covenant is incapable of seduction. He sees
himself as worthless, so that even if Lena had been TRYING to
give him signals I don't think he would have caught it.
In terms of the story, a Covenant capable of seduction would
have been a completely different character ... so everything
would have been quite different.
A guilt-free Covenant is not to be thought of.
by Covenant. She was already infatuated with him, and by the
idea of being the Queen to his Berek.
Truthfully, though, Covenant is incapable of seduction. He sees
himself as worthless, so that even if Lena had been TRYING to
give him signals I don't think he would have caught it.
In terms of the story, a Covenant capable of seduction would
have been a completely different character ... so everything
would have been quite different.
A guilt-free Covenant is not to be thought of.
Sexual Violence
Sorry to post this a month late, but...
Hiyah, I'm new here to the boards, and I just wanted to weigh in on the chapter with the rape. The first couple of times I read the series I was young, before and during high school, so I did not really perceive the weight attached to a rape. I just shrugged it off as another part of the narrative, understandable because TC had been impotent so long it only made some sort of sense that he would respond so forcefully to his new found virility.
I feel somewhat differently now, having known (and in one case, having been married to) people who have been raped and abused in their lives, and I have to say the whole thing leaves me more unsettled than ever. I believe there could have been other ways, less triggerful ways to make the same point. And I refuse to believe that anyone would resort to the "Lena secretly wanted it" argument, because we all know that's a load or horse pucky. Remember no means no?
And this then begs another point: why does the motif of sexual violence against women occur so many times in SRD's novels? Lena gets raped, Eremis is constantly using sex as a weapon against Theresa, and look at the pure brutality Morn suffers at the hands of Angus!
Is this showing an insight into SRD's vision of women, or is it an insight into the brutality of men in general? I don't think I've read any interviews that really clarified this for me, as most interviewings have involved fans who just accept the point and breeze past it.
Now I forgive it because the stories are so great. I wish he used a better way to drive the narrative, but I accept what he's given, grimace through the parts I find discomforting, and immensely enjoy everything else.
James
Hiyah, I'm new here to the boards, and I just wanted to weigh in on the chapter with the rape. The first couple of times I read the series I was young, before and during high school, so I did not really perceive the weight attached to a rape. I just shrugged it off as another part of the narrative, understandable because TC had been impotent so long it only made some sort of sense that he would respond so forcefully to his new found virility.
I feel somewhat differently now, having known (and in one case, having been married to) people who have been raped and abused in their lives, and I have to say the whole thing leaves me more unsettled than ever. I believe there could have been other ways, less triggerful ways to make the same point. And I refuse to believe that anyone would resort to the "Lena secretly wanted it" argument, because we all know that's a load or horse pucky. Remember no means no?
And this then begs another point: why does the motif of sexual violence against women occur so many times in SRD's novels? Lena gets raped, Eremis is constantly using sex as a weapon against Theresa, and look at the pure brutality Morn suffers at the hands of Angus!
Is this showing an insight into SRD's vision of women, or is it an insight into the brutality of men in general? I don't think I've read any interviews that really clarified this for me, as most interviewings have involved fans who just accept the point and breeze past it.
Now I forgive it because the stories are so great. I wish he used a better way to drive the narrative, but I accept what he's given, grimace through the parts I find discomforting, and immensely enjoy everything else.
James
Last edited by Galador on Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Lady Genni
- Ramen
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 9:30 pm
Welcome James! You bring up a really good point about SRD and how sex is used in his stories. I never quite put it together that it's a common theme in his stories.
Maybe he uses it because it's the ultimate violation. SRD doesn't do things in half measures. Maybe it's just the most dramatic/effective way he can get his point across?
One thing I like, is how SRD handles the situation throughout the rest of the story. (First Chronicles) It's not an isolated incident that goes without reprocussions. The damage is carried through all three books and that to me gives it a realistic take. Anyone who has been violated in this manner knows that the real pain comes later, and most of the damage isn't physical.
Maybe he uses it because it's the ultimate violation. SRD doesn't do things in half measures. Maybe it's just the most dramatic/effective way he can get his point across?
One thing I like, is how SRD handles the situation throughout the rest of the story. (First Chronicles) It's not an isolated incident that goes without reprocussions. The damage is carried through all three books and that to me gives it a realistic take. Anyone who has been violated in this manner knows that the real pain comes later, and most of the damage isn't physical.
Lady Genni
"By the Seven...!"
"By the Seven...!"
-
aliantha
- blueberries on steroids
- Posts: 17865
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe
Thank you, Lady Genni -- that is exactly the answer I was after. You get a gold star!I think the rape of Lena shows the paradox of white gold..."Save or Damn". It shows that TC is capable of doing something really horrible.
And, yes, SRD *did* have to have some way to conceive Elena.
And, yes, SRD does use sexual violence as a theme a lot. Maybe it's partly a way to sell books? But, hmm, maybe there's another reason that he hasn't talked about much (if at all). Hmmm....
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
-
duchess of malfi
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 9:20 pm
- Location: Michigan, USA
-
thoughtcube
- Servant of the Land
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 9:03 pm
More about the rape
I see this topic has already been laid to rest here, but I'll add my own opinion for anyone that happens to read it 
Covenant's rape is similar to the murder in Crime&Punishment. It is a test of ethics. TC is unsure about whether the Land is real, and (driven by the various psychological forces mentioned here previously) commits the act of rape. He in effect is testing his theory: if the Land isn't real, he shouldn't feel any guilt or sorrow. Naturally he doesn't think this over consciously at the time of the fell act (and of course nothing could justify if...) - but for plot purposes, the rape serves to drive home the basic issue of TCoTC: ("the question of ethics") do we have any ethical commitment to things we don't believe are real?
Covenants reaction to his deed over this book and the next two answer the question would be an answer to that question.
Covenant's rape is similar to the murder in Crime&Punishment. It is a test of ethics. TC is unsure about whether the Land is real, and (driven by the various psychological forces mentioned here previously) commits the act of rape. He in effect is testing his theory: if the Land isn't real, he shouldn't feel any guilt or sorrow. Naturally he doesn't think this over consciously at the time of the fell act (and of course nothing could justify if...) - but for plot purposes, the rape serves to drive home the basic issue of TCoTC: ("the question of ethics") do we have any ethical commitment to things we don't believe are real?
Covenants reaction to his deed over this book and the next two answer the question would be an answer to that question.
-
Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25363
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
my god thoughtcube that is brilliant!
I have often wondered at the meaning of the 'Fundamental Question of Ethics' premise Donaldson presents via the Creator to TC .. and you have absoutely nailed it .. I think
And what a 'question'?
that is quite a question! .. and you applied it precisely to the context of the chrons .. and the intent of the author to address such an issue.do we have any ethical commitment to things we don't believe are real?
I have often wondered at the meaning of the 'Fundamental Question of Ethics' premise Donaldson presents via the Creator to TC .. and you have absoutely nailed it .. I think
And what a 'question'?
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
-
danlo
- Lord
- Posts: 20838
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 8:29 pm
- Location: Albuquerque NM
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
We were warned of xactly this in the Beggar's note, a fundamental question of ethics... If TC refuses 2 kill in or believe in a dream, or hallucination--it makes it that much ezer 2 take the rape in tow and deny it. It makes me crazy that many readers out there drop SRD when they hit the rape. The rape, as I've said b4, is fundamental in understanding TC's dilemma, and in establishing the "reality" of the Land. One must b able 2 establish one's own "ethics" in any given situation. There is kharma even in dreams. We must b accountable 4 our actions in any given moment of our xistence...even if we r dreaming, hallucinating or drunk! As long as our brains function we r responsible...
OK, I kno it's harsh and we don't xpect this stuff in fantasy. But the Chrons would never have had the same impact, or taught us as much as they did w/o that scene. Martin's, and other new writer's(Burst and Erikson, i.e...), stuff wouldn't even b 1/2 way as acceptable as it is now if SRD hadn't broken this new ground in fantasy. And they kno it...
OK, I kno it's harsh and we don't xpect this stuff in fantasy. But the Chrons would never have had the same impact, or taught us as much as they did w/o that scene. Martin's, and other new writer's(Burst and Erikson, i.e...), stuff wouldn't even b 1/2 way as acceptable as it is now if SRD hadn't broken this new ground in fantasy. And they kno it...
Last edited by danlo on Mon Jan 06, 2003 4:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
fall far and well Pilots!
(By the way... thoughtcube is me, I had a few problems registering a user the way I wanted. And I finally settled on "Drinny", the better to fit in 
From now I'll only use "Drinny")
If you have a short dream - like we do every night - and you do something immoral (say, acting disrespectful of someone) - is that immoral? Once you awaken, you think about the whole scene with amusement, and the person you disrespected doesn't exist anymore. Or to be more precise, chances are you'll never run into them again, in a dream or out of one.
Reality differs from a dream by being "stabile". As Phillip K. Dick once put it (while realizing it was far from a good answer): "Reality is that which, when you ignore it, doesn't go away." So that is a big difference between our waking world and our dreams - dreams are fleeting, temporary, and do not "continue".
The Land, for TC, is in fact a very stabile environment. So perhaps because of that he has ethical responsibility for it, like in our waking world (and unlike in a normal 15-minute dream)?. I don't think so, TCTC is much more complicated than that. And this isn't the right thread for the topic, either. But my answer would involve not only stability, but also beauty, a central topic in TCTC.
Hope that wasn't too long...
From now I'll only use "Drinny")Interesting comment. But do you really believe that? And does SRD present that opinion in TCTC? I have some doubt about both. But please explain yourself more if I'm missing something (which is probably the case).We must b accountable 4 our actions in any given moment of our xistence...even if we r dreaming, hallucinating or drunk! As long as our brains function we r responsible...
If you have a short dream - like we do every night - and you do something immoral (say, acting disrespectful of someone) - is that immoral? Once you awaken, you think about the whole scene with amusement, and the person you disrespected doesn't exist anymore. Or to be more precise, chances are you'll never run into them again, in a dream or out of one.
Reality differs from a dream by being "stabile". As Phillip K. Dick once put it (while realizing it was far from a good answer): "Reality is that which, when you ignore it, doesn't go away." So that is a big difference between our waking world and our dreams - dreams are fleeting, temporary, and do not "continue".
The Land, for TC, is in fact a very stabile environment. So perhaps because of that he has ethical responsibility for it, like in our waking world (and unlike in a normal 15-minute dream)?. I don't think so, TCTC is much more complicated than that. And this isn't the right thread for the topic, either.
But my answer would involve not only stability, but also beauty, a central topic in TCTC.Hope that wasn't too long...
-
danlo
- Lord
- Posts: 20838
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 8:29 pm
- Location: Albuquerque NM
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
I'd say yes 2 both questions and stand behind this statement 100%! Everything that happens 2 TC is so real (dreamsrreality)!~If this is a dream TC can toss away everything but the rape...he has done nothing wrong, as far as he can tell...but he has done something wrong...4 the rest of ur answer c the very beginning of this "dissection" Chapts 1 & 2="his imagination could kill him..."We must b accountable 4 our actions in any given moment of our xistence...even if we r dreaming, hallucinating or drunk! As long as our brains function we r responsible...
(p.s. I was trying 2 agree w/u and back u up, but what the Hellfire...!!! p.p.s. I doubt the Land was stable 4 him whatsoever--blown by winds of doubt, madness..self loss...)
fall far and well Pilots!
-
Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25363
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
I may be totally off the track but .. the pure brilliance of Drinny's insight for me lay in this quote ..
.. As soon as we become aware or 'cognizant' of the 'reality' or even 'existence' of a thing .. we would then owe it some degree of ethical commitment it would seem.
'Existence' .. is interesting .. because in dreams .. it is rare to acknowledge the existence or 'reality' if you will of a 'particular' within 'the dream state'.
We dream .. we journey into the bizarre realms of sleep .. most dreams are not even remembered on waking .. and of those that are very few make any rational sense ..
.. yet it is possible that some may journey into some more concrete realm .. and in these rare states .. there may be some level of accountabity .. but before that can be .. there must first come cognizance/awareness of that more 'concrete realm'.
In dreams I do not believe we are accountable for our actions .. primarily because we are rarely in control of our actions in dreams .. nor the environment in which the dream habitates.
I can often recall dreaming a scenario and being unable to control a given outcome .. or even manouvere my 'being' the way I want it to go .. etc..
And in such scenario's it would be grievously unjust to be held accountable for acts lacking volition ..
Getting back to the point though .. we can only be held accountable for our actions where we are cognizant ..
Which is why the quote by P. Dick is interesting ..
As soon as he 'realised' that .. and became cognizant of that .. he owed this realm an 'ethical commitment'.
The extent of his accountability for Lena's rape .. is questionable and controversial .. as his actions at the time of the rape did not lack volition .. but they did occur within a state in which 'he' lacked 'a true appreciation' or a cognizance of the 'reality of circumstances' .. but that is another argument.
Getting back to the 2 quotes Drinny made .. the 'Fundamental Question of Ethics' .. would seem to be answered .. by saying .. yes we do owe an ethical commitment to those things as soon as we become aware of their reality ..
And that means as soon as we become cognizant of that very fact .. and not after some determined denial of the fact .. but as soon as we become 'aware' .. 'conscious' .. and from that very moment .. we are indeed accountable for our actions ..
Which imho TC was from the moment he realised the Land would not go away by him just wishing it to .. from then he was accountable .. and from then there could be no turning back! .. and he knew it.
the crux of that insight is for me .. are in these 4 bolded words ..do we have any ethical commitment to things we don't believe are real?
To me .. right or wrong .. the answer to this question would demand the element of 'cognizance' .. it would seem to hangs on our honest/actual 'belief' ..do we have any ethical commitment to things .. we don't believe are real?
.. As soon as we become aware or 'cognizant' of the 'reality' or even 'existence' of a thing .. we would then owe it some degree of ethical commitment it would seem.
'Existence' .. is interesting .. because in dreams .. it is rare to acknowledge the existence or 'reality' if you will of a 'particular' within 'the dream state'.
We dream .. we journey into the bizarre realms of sleep .. most dreams are not even remembered on waking .. and of those that are very few make any rational sense ..
.. yet it is possible that some may journey into some more concrete realm .. and in these rare states .. there may be some level of accountabity .. but before that can be .. there must first come cognizance/awareness of that more 'concrete realm'.
In dreams I do not believe we are accountable for our actions .. primarily because we are rarely in control of our actions in dreams .. nor the environment in which the dream habitates.
I can often recall dreaming a scenario and being unable to control a given outcome .. or even manouvere my 'being' the way I want it to go .. etc..
And in such scenario's it would be grievously unjust to be held accountable for acts lacking volition ..
Getting back to the point though .. we can only be held accountable for our actions where we are cognizant ..
Which is why the quote by P. Dick is interesting ..
TC did not believe the Land was 'real' .. he did attempt to ignore the possibility of its reality .. till it would not go away .."Reality is that which, when you ignore it, doesn't go away."
As soon as he 'realised' that .. and became cognizant of that .. he owed this realm an 'ethical commitment'.
The extent of his accountability for Lena's rape .. is questionable and controversial .. as his actions at the time of the rape did not lack volition .. but they did occur within a state in which 'he' lacked 'a true appreciation' or a cognizance of the 'reality of circumstances' .. but that is another argument.
Getting back to the 2 quotes Drinny made .. the 'Fundamental Question of Ethics' .. would seem to be answered .. by saying .. yes we do owe an ethical commitment to those things as soon as we become aware of their reality ..
And that means as soon as we become cognizant of that very fact .. and not after some determined denial of the fact .. but as soon as we become 'aware' .. 'conscious' .. and from that very moment .. we are indeed accountable for our actions ..
Which imho TC was from the moment he realised the Land would not go away by him just wishing it to .. from then he was accountable .. and from then there could be no turning back! .. and he knew it.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
Interesting points, danlo and Skyweir!
Danlo, I agree with you that TC is ethically responsible in TCTC. But he hasn't decided about the issue himself, and the rape is sort of a 'test'. At least that's how I see it.
As for the Land not being stabile for him - I also agree; I didn't notice how chaotic it was for him until this time around reading the series. It does seem much like a dream to him, and therefore his dilemma - is it a dream - is a real one.
Skyweir, what do you mean by
How do we know something is real or not? That's the problem here.
Let's be specific. Covenant could wake up suddenly from his experience (at the point of chapter 20 or so, where the dissection currently is), and be told by doctors that he was in a coma for a week and they suspect he dreamed very vividly (perhaps he had prolonged rapid-eye-movements or whatever). And lets also assume that TC never experiences the Land ever again, and that he dies at a very old age or whatever.
If my hypothetical situation were to happen, would he feel guilty for raping Lena? Or would he perhaps forget the whole thing in a few days, and think on the whole incident as some coma-induced hallucination?
I'm not sure myself what I'd answer here. (That's the beauty of SRD's work... ) But now that I think about it, the relative stability of the Land for TC isn't enough. It IS crucial that TC controls his actions, as you say Skyweir, but that also isn't enough.
What I (currently... ) think is a good answer to this issue is the matter of beauty. If TC didn't find the Land beautiful - beautiful to him - things might be different. But since the Land presented itself as a stable and realistic (in it's way) environment, where he controls his own actions, and also finds himself emotionally moved by what he sees - to cause destruction is immoral. Who could do a wrong deed under such circumstances and not feel guilt?
Danlo, I agree with you that TC is ethically responsible in TCTC. But he hasn't decided about the issue himself, and the rape is sort of a 'test'. At least that's how I see it.
As for the Land not being stabile for him - I also agree; I didn't notice how chaotic it was for him until this time around reading the series. It does seem much like a dream to him, and therefore his dilemma - is it a dream - is a real one.
Skyweir, what do you mean by
?yes we do owe an ethical commitment to those things as soon as we become aware of their reality ..
How do we know something is real or not? That's the problem here.
Let's be specific. Covenant could wake up suddenly from his experience (at the point of chapter 20 or so, where the dissection currently is), and be told by doctors that he was in a coma for a week and they suspect he dreamed very vividly (perhaps he had prolonged rapid-eye-movements or whatever). And lets also assume that TC never experiences the Land ever again, and that he dies at a very old age or whatever.
If my hypothetical situation were to happen, would he feel guilty for raping Lena? Or would he perhaps forget the whole thing in a few days, and think on the whole incident as some coma-induced hallucination?
I'm not sure myself what I'd answer here. (That's the beauty of SRD's work...
) But now that I think about it, the relative stability of the Land for TC isn't enough. It IS crucial that TC controls his actions, as you say Skyweir, but that also isn't enough.What I (currently...
) think is a good answer to this issue is the matter of beauty. If TC didn't find the Land beautiful - beautiful to him - things might be different. But since the Land presented itself as a stable and realistic (in it's way) environment, where he controls his own actions, and also finds himself emotionally moved by what he sees - to cause destruction is immoral. Who could do a wrong deed under such circumstances and not feel guilt?