Lord Foul's Bane Chapters 7 & 8

LFB, TIW, TPTP

Moderators: Cord Hurn, danlo, dlbpharmd

Post Reply
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

How do we know something is real or not? That's the problem here
indeed that is the problem here .. but I thought the problem was addressed nicely by your quote of P.Dick ..

if it doesnt go away .. if it becomes 'real' .. by persisting .. continuing ..

If TC wakes up in the scenario you pose .. then he is not 'guilty' for being engulfed in a dream .. an intricate dream yes .. but not real.

And the beauty .. is also not enough .. because what if he arrived in the Land for the first time in the 2nd chrons. He still would have had to accept the Lands reality .. if real it was. Then he would have still been accountable for his actions .. he would have then owed this new environment an ethical commitment .. regardless of the lack of beauty.

To me .. it is about cognizance. As soon as TC becomes aware of this 'reality' .. then he becomes accountable .. and owes the Land a duty as any other inhabitant of that existence.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Drinny
Stonedownor
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 12:20 pm

Post by Drinny »

Well, I've been wracking my brain on this one for two days now... truly, one of the pivotal points of TCTC is in this chapter.

Skyweir - how much time does the Land need to 'persist, continue' for it to be 'real' for our purposes? I'm starting to think mere persistence isn't enough. And if I contradict my previous self... tough :wink:

Let's consider this: why do we assume TC has an ethical commitment TO THE LAND? Why not to the Despiser?

It is no coincidence that SRD shows us the incredible beauty of the Land, I think. Covenant loves the Land from the start, he 'sides' with it - and against the Despiser - from the very beginning. And therefore when the Old Beggar says
Be true.
he is telling Covenant to be himself, to be true to who he is. Ignoring the Lands need, when he loves it and finds it beautiful, is to betray himself. And this is so whether or not the Land is real (if it is - then ignoring the Land is to ignore something he cares for, if it is not - then he ignores something important within himself).
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

how much time does the Land need to 'persist, continue' for it to be 'real'
mmm .. that is interesting Drinny .. and I think this cannot be quantified .. that it is entirely individual .. and for TC it would be when it became real for him .. regardless of any sense of denial

.. for afterall .. 'denial' is just the act of refusal to accept what one knows is true/real .. etc..

TC would be the only to answer this question ..

His failure to accept the Lands reality earlier .. creates guilt in him .. but he cannot be blamed for what he did not believe imho.

.. afterall we can only speculate as to what the circumstances may have been for TC .. but only TC knows the truth ..

Be true .. the Creator warned .. and TC was not an individual accustomed with unscrupulous behaviour it would seem .. no matter what had been thrown at him in his life .. it would seem he always played fair.

When arguably many others would not have ..

Regardless of the presence of the Lands natural beauty .. though undoubtedly it played a part .. as soon as he understood more than he did on his first arrival to the Land .. he had to commit himself to aiding the Land .. because it was the ethical thing to do ..

And .. TC in himself had to BE TRUE .. because that was who he was .. that he could not escape ..

And that is why out of all the world of men and white gold jewelry .. it was 'he' who was chosen .. to be the Land's champion.
why do we assume TC has an ethical commitment TO THE LAND? Why not to the Despiser
?

because as soon as TC figured out the game .. he chose the only side he being who he was .. could in all good conscience .. play for ..

He was also quite human .. had been through more than most can imagine .. what happened to Lena .. is not beyond understanding ..
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
Lal
Servant of the Land
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Leaping into the fray!

Post by Lal »

Hi people! I'm a newbie, and I'm going to attempt to join the discussions whilst keeping my usual incoherent ranting down to a minimum. Ahem.
In case anyone was wondering how I got here, I recently re-read the First Chronicles and was Googling for information and discussions about the Land. The first site I looked at was theland.antgear.com and this site was linked to it.

So here are some random thoughts and responses to earlier posts on this thread:

I first read the series when I was 16 and my impressions of this particular chapter of LFB are similar to that of Galador/James. At the time I saw the rape scene as unpleasant, but not morally repugnant, and so carried on with the book and the rest of the series without any qualms. I'm now 24 and on re-reading the book, I found that I was more disturbed by the scene and understood the consequences of it far better, yet I was still not repulsed in any way. I cannot really explain why this is. Part of it is due to the way in which SRD wrote the scene. It is as well-written as any other part of the book, in spite of being incredibly brief. For example, what Lena feels at Covenant's hands is described as being like:
..stabbed with a white, wild fire that broke her silence...
It's not at all pleasant to think about or imagine, yet this is tied with what Mhoram says in TPTP about Covenant and the wild white magic gold. Or maybe I'm just very wrong for thinking so.

One argument for the brevity of the scene, in comparison with the lavish description seen elsewhere, is that SRD believed that the rape was critical to the story but wanted to get it over with as soon as possible for fear of appearing misogynistic. However, this does become a worrying possibility when the Gap series is taken into account. Do similar abuses of women crop up in Mordant's Need as well?

I think that Lena would have willingly submitted to Covenant, had he been gentle with her. She was enraptured by his very person, his strangeness, his resemblance to Berek and his white-gold ring. Triock saw it and described Lena as being dazzled by Covenant, this "fell stranger", and he was jealous.

As for the scene as part of the greater story, my view is that it was necessary. Covenant is shown to do a despicable act very early on in the series, and so it is never certain that he will save the Land. He may damn it after all. Elena had to be born, but I don't believe she was flawed due to the nature of her conception, but as a result of the actions of others.
Spoiler
Triock's statement in TPTP is incredibly unfair. What damned Elena was the horserite of Kelenbhrabanal, which resulted from Covenant sending the Ranyhyn to Lena. (In this respect, I have little sympathy for plight of the Ranyhyn in TPTP as I feel they brought it on themselves). Lena's obsession with Covenant did account for Elena's rather disturbing attraction to him, but I think Lena's obsession would have remained, in one form or another, even if he had slept with her without violence.

Danlo's point about being accountable:
danlo wrote: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...
I agree. It has been said that one of the only things that separates law-abiding people from criminals is opportunity. Covenant's opportunity was that he believed the Land was a dream and so his actions didn't matter; they would have no lasting effect. I firmly believe that a person has to be held accountable for their own actions at all times, and I would truly despise myself if I ever had a dream where I raped someone, or committed any other kind of immoral act. I really do hope that I never have such a dream.

One final point. For stupidly long URLs, try:
makeashorterlink.com

Very useful indeed!

Here endeth the first post of Lal. I hope some of it made sense to someone.
"I speak only of what gives me courage. You are a different person and will have different courage."
User avatar
aliantha
blueberries on steroids
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe

Post by aliantha »

Be welcome, Lal! Welcome and true!

Boy, this thread just never dies, does it? :lol:

Drinny, Sky & Danlo, what a great discussion about morality v. reality! I would only point out that dreams are not the only altered states of consciousness we can achieve. Using drugs and/or alcohol can also put us in a state of unreality, and also lessen our inhibitions to the point that we decide it's okay to violate our moral principles. Some mental illnesses could also lead to a sort of altered state of consciousness, in which someone might commit an act that they would normally consider immoral.

Another consideration is that we know that dreams are the brain's way of clearing out the crap that accumulates there during our waking hours. Because dreams are so rife with symbolism, we could dream ourselves into a situation that would be horribly immoral in reality, but that means something completely different in the dream state.

So, yeah, I'd go with Philip K. Dick's assessment: Once you're pretty sure it's not a dream, you'd better start acting according to your values. TC could have written off the rape (if he'd allowed himself to think about it) as his brain's way of getting even with the world's treatment of him since he got sick -- until he realized that there was a chance the Land was real. At that instant, he would have to begin acting morally, and feel the need to atone for his crime.
Spoiler
In fact, it's when he begins to let himself think about what he did to Lena that the reality or unreality of the Land begins to cease to matter to him -- all he knows is that he acted abominably, and that's when he *really* dons the hair-shirt of self-despite that he wears for much of the rest of the series.
User avatar
Foamfollower1013
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 9:30 pm

Re: Leaping into the fray!

Post by Foamfollower1013 »

Lal wrote:One argument for the brevity of the scene, in comparison with the lavish description seen elsewhere, is that SRD believed that the rape was critical to the story but wanted to get it over with as soon as possible for fear of appearing misogynistic. However, this does become a worrying possibility when the Gap series is taken into account. Do similar abuses of women crop up in Mordant's Need as well?
I think the answer to that question is most definitely Yes.

~Foamy~
Reisheiruhime
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2573
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:22 pm

Post by Reisheiruhime »

Yes indeed. :?
guest

lena's rape

Post by guest »

consider all that TC has been through it comes to a boil and he has a temporary dose of insanity and attacks the nearest person. most of us have blown up at another person that was truley an inocent bystander they just had the msifortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time yes rape was wrong but it was an extreme reaction to his life and was neccesary for the story line that follows to show how much the people of the land are willing to give for the preservation of the land SRD creates an fantastic story and world consider what you would do if you were there and felt that you would not be held accountable for any of your actions???
soulsease

responding to disection of chapter 7

Post by soulsease »

I believe that the rape is a r3esult of Covenants fear of the Lady in the leprosium,who was completely delusional,and her leprosy was in full flower.If covenant believed his "potency" to be real, then he to was delusional,and hopeless.there fore the seduction of the land was false and did not exist to him. How much resposibility, or even thought do you give to actions in your dreams?
Guest

Post by Guest »

How deep do you want to go with your question? I've had some dreams that were the typical "huh? wha fua?" others so vivid so real that to this day I wonder if they actually happened?
Covenants whole being is in turmoil because he KNOWS that he was (?) hit by a police car. He felt himself falling to the ground and felt his head strike the pavement. He knows that from constant doctrine by the doctors at the leporsarium<sic> that there is no way that he could be experiencing what he's experincing right now. There's no outcropping anywhere on earth that juts 4000 feet all by it's lonesome and that there's a stairway leading to the summit. People just DO not repair broken shards of pottery by piecing them together and rubbing them humming a tune. Nobody on earth dresses the way that the stonedowner dresses. He would've read about it in the National Geographic wouldn't he?

Thus it's all a dream... so then why is it so fricken R-E-A-L ??

Unlike Troy who simply went with it and enjoyed the ride. Covenant has a life threatening illness. He had to be vilgilant ere he would die. The woman at the leporsarium and the hermit showed him what would be his fate if he didn't adhere to the disicplines taught to him. They terrified him, drove home the raw truth of his illness. He had to live/breathe his VSE "...before setting off Covenant deliberately gave him-self a VSE."

Now he's in this impossible place with these impossible people and going through impossible situations. No wonder he went nuts. Dispair can do this to a person trying to hold on to what's left...his own sanity.
Blue_Spawn
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:09 am

Post by Blue_Spawn »

One cannot fully blame Covenant without critiquing Lena as well. The Land is a universe much different from our own (not just in a substantial sense). The way that people communicate with eachother, and their psyche is one such difference. Lena is a person that we will probably never find in the real world. Her benevolence and ability to trust a stranger so strongly (in the beggining of the novel) is exclusive. It was because of this that she allowed herself to be a victim of this act. On the other hand, if she was cautious and vigilent, she would not possess the same benevolence.

So what is this telling us? That in order to survive we must purge our feelings of love and trust? That we cannot demostrate benevolence without accepting high risks of danger?
Mystikan
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:56 pm
Location: South Australia
Contact:

Post by Mystikan »

Sorry to bump this old thread yet again, people, but this part of TCTC has a VERY deep personal relevance to me...

First, these books are my favourite work of ANY literature for a very good reason. Maybe I'm not doing the right thing by posting this here, since my own experience is very personal, but I need to share some thoughts about it. The reason I'm so heavily into TCTC is because I have somewhat of a "Land" of my own to cope with. I'll start another thread on this though, so more on this later.

I have to comment on the posts where people talk about having an ethical commitment to a dream and being held accountable for what one does in a dream. I can say, from a unique perspective, that you ARE accountable ONLY within the context of the dream and your identity within it. You are NOT accountable outside the context of the dream, no matter what you do in the dream. So if you dream about raping or killing someone, that does not make you a rapist or murderer in real life. You are not yourself in the dream, you are someone else within the dream.

By way of explanation of what I mean, consider this passage, from the first chapter:
Covenant crossed in front of the department store, and through the glass front he could see several high-school girls pricing cheap jewellery. They leaned on the counters in provocative poses, and Covenant's throat tightened involuntarily. He found himself resenting the hips and breasts of the girls - curves for other men's caresses, not his. He was impotent.
And THAT, boys and girls, is the real reason he rapes Lena - in the context of his "dream". The source of his sexual frustration is expressed right there, and I'm surprised in all the discussion over all this time that nobody made this connection. It is far too easy to sit in judgement of Tom without considering the conditions of his life that led him to "dream" about raping someone. Since dreams are a subconscious expression of the fears, frustrations, and feelings of our waking lives, is it so surprising that our Tom vents his subconscious frustration within the context of a dream, no matter how real it seems? Does he rape those girls in the shop? No. Would he, given the opportunity? I seriously doubt it:
'It's real. That is reality. Fact. The kind of thing that kills you if you don't believe it.' With a gesture of rejection toward the river, he gasped, "This is a nightmare.' (my italics)
So TC knew viscerally the distinction between dream and reality. He's not the sort of guy who goes around raping teenage girls, however frustrated he may be. The consequences would kill him. But in a dream, that's irrelevant. And he'd know it. His subconcious would know it. QED.

Ok, now I've pointed out my perspective on TC's treatment of Lena, you might want to check out my own experiences here. For those who have asked about my avatar, you're about to find out...
The only difference between light and dark is the ability to tell the difference.
Blue_Spawn
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:09 am

Post by Blue_Spawn »

Mystikan wrote:And THAT, boys and girls, is the real reason he rapes Lena - in the context of his "dream". The source of his sexual frustration is expressed right there, and I'm surprised in all the discussion over all this time that nobody made this connection. It is far too easy to sit in judgement of Tom without considering the conditions of his life that led him to "dream" about raping someone. Since dreams are a subconscious expression of the fears, frustrations, and feelings of our waking lives, is it so surprising that our Tom vents his subconscious frustration within the context of a dream, no matter how real it seems? Does he rape those girls in the shop? No. Would he, given the opportunity? I seriously doubt it:
I have to say that you've brought this argument into a loop with that statement. Many of use have pointed out the fact that Covenant was sex hungry and didn't believe the world he habited was real. Stating that is just scratching the surface of the issue.

The big deal lies in the question --> Do you really know that he believed it was a dream?

It is my hypothesis that he was attempting to delude himself the entire time. I think he was well aware of the reality of the situation, he just refused to accept it. You have to realize, that no matter how crazy something may seem, you just can't dream in such a way. It doesn't happen. The human mind is incapable of dreaming in such great a detail, it simply can't do that. Another big factor is that the human mind (once realizing when it is dreaming) has an almost full potential to wake up. Covenant must have been aware of these facts. He just chose to reject them on the basis of his stubborness. THAT is the case. Because you need to be a heavily mentaly ill person (which Thomas Covenant may well be) if you can omit all of the above.

He's just a crazy leper that hasn't been laid for a long time and decided to do in a 15 year old. Nothing more to say. You can argue how he was madly driven by lust, confusion, dellusion, and suffering, but in the end it amounts to a guy revealing something about his personality. I'm quite sure that if one of those high school girls had been as nice and compasionate as Lena, Covenant would have said something like "No one can be nice to me. This must be a dream." and raped her too.

That's just his nature.
Mystikan
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:56 pm
Location: South Australia
Contact:

Post by Mystikan »

Blue_Spawn wrote:You have to realize, that no matter how crazy something may seem, you just can't dream in such a way. It doesn't happen. The human mind is incapable of dreaming in such great a detail, it simply can't do that. Another big factor is that the human mind (once realizing when it is dreaming) has an almost full potential to wake up.
Had you read my thread A Land of my own when you posted this? It is my experience that at least for some people, the mind can dream in that way - if my own experience in Arnagest is in fact just a dream, then it's a damn realistic one! :) My own perception of reality hinges on the belief that it is a dream only while I'm not in it. In my capacity as a Lord of the Arnagest, I once gave the Syklonians authorisation and logistical assistance to cross the Arnagest Barrier Zone and bombard a world, known as Iresan Dalin, because its inhabitants were engaging in a project that would have destroyed the Balance. This action resulted in the death of my own daughter, who was on Iresan Dalin helping them at the time. I sent the Syklonians there with full knowledge of her involvement, even as she had ignored my warning to stay clear and not get involved. Does that make me a murderer, a procurer of the deaths of my daughter and millions of intelligent beings?

Now, to me, here on Earth, all that is just a dream. It only seemed "real" at the time when I was there. Now, if I were in a position of power here, say if I were the President of the US, would I have called for war on Iraq or Afghanistan as GWB did, in essentially the same way my Arnagest self called for war on Iresan Dalin? No, I most certainly would not - I am opposed to this Earthly war, the needless destruction of life in the name of expediency. If I wanted OBL or SH captured, I'd have used covert ops and minimised the damage to those countries and the cost to the US. I could have used the same tactics I would have used were I in GWB's shoes, on Iresan Dalin, but I did not. I'm a different person there than I am here, and I feel differently about things.

When one is confronted with a situation that all logic and reason assures one is patently impossible, as with my own experience, there is no way to tell how a person might react. This is where that sinister message about the question of ethics, that TC gets from the old man in Chapt. 2 of LFB comes in:
SRD, in Lord Foul's Bane, wrote:A real man - real in all the ways that we recognize as real - finds himself suddenly abstracted from the world and deposited in a physical situation which could not possible(sic) exist: sounds have aroma, smells have colour and depth, sights have texture, touches have pitch and timbre. There he is informed by a disembodied voice that he has been brought to that place as a champion for his world. He must fight to the death in single combat against a champion from another world. If he is defeated, he will die, and his world - the real world - will be destroyed because it lacks the inner strength to survive.
The man refuses to believe that what he is told is true. He asserts that he is either dreaming or hallucinating, and declines to be put in the false position of fighting to the death where no 'real' danger exists. He is implacable in his determination to disbelieve his apparent situation, and does not defend himself when he is attacked by the champion of the other world.
Question: is the man's behaviour courageous or cowardly? This is the fundamental question of ethics.
Can you truthfully answer that question? It's easy when the dream is obviously just a dream, a concatenation of random events brought on by one's subconscious fears, and is soon over and forgotten. But when the "dream" is coherent, specific and impactive, as in this case or my own case, then the answer to that question becomes much more critical.

My answer is, that the man is courageous, in a way very few of us ever could be. When faced with a situation that seems both real and impossible, the only way to avoid becoming unhinged is to adhere, with every fibre of your being, to what you know is fact. The alternative is a passive acceptance that everything you've lived for up to that moment, everything you've learned about the world through your own painful learning, your own suffering and the suffering of others, all logic and reason, counts for nothing. And that is simply cowardice. And, in my own methods of dealing with my experience, by holding this world as real while I am here, and Arnagest as real while I am there, I admit that I am a coward. Because of the sense of reality in it, because if I had been courageous and maintained while in the Arnagest that I was simply dreaming, ignoring my responsibilities there, the experience would have been a lot worse than it has been. And I could not deal with it in any other way.

So I'm convinced that TC would not have raped a girl in the real world, even if she tried to help him as Lena did. He more likely would have repulsed her, thinking she was mocking him, because that was what the real world had taught him about real people. By the time he raped Lena, he'd had more than sufficient time and experience in the Land to realise that what he was experiencing defied all the laws of physics and common sense. He'd seen a fantasy-book creature that could not possibly exist, heard a disembodied voice making nonsensical and abusive statements, an incurable disease cured by mud, and fires that burned and stoneware repaired by magic. Logic and reason had already flown out the window as far as he was concerned. Emotion was all that was left to him. So he gave his inner anger and fear expression by letting them out in a way he never could have in the real world - because it was just a dream, it was not real. By raping Lena, by refusing point-blank to accept that what he was experiencing was real, and by committing himself to an act that he knew was the most cowardly atrocity a man can commit, he displayed an incredible degree of courage in defying what he was experiencing.

I know that last statement is going to arouse a lot of ire, because most reasonable people won't see past the act in and of itself, to what it actually represented. That's perfectly understandable, because those people have never been in the situation of dealing with the real/impossible, and thus have never been directly faced with "the fundamental question of ethics". I have. And like Hile Troy, I've failed. TC had. And he did not fail - until the 2nd Chronicles, when he succumbed to the paradox in the same way Hile Troy did and the same way I have with Arnagest. The result of such acceptance was his ineluctable death. As it was with Hile Troy. And, I am convinced, it will one day be with me.

I will point out that had TC raped a girl in his own world, I would have thrown the book across the room and I would not be in this forum today. Such an act then would have simply been a pathetic excuse for TC's leprosy, and I would have dismissed it as crappy, misogynistic pulp fiction. But by portraying such an evil act in the context of the real/impossible as he has, SRD has masterfully posed a question few would have the knowledge to ask, let alone have the courage to answer. If you can understand the question well enough to truly answer it, you'll understand why TC did what he did. Then you could confront your own inner self in a deeply revealing way that would not be possible to answer without asking such a stark question. And you might be surprised by the answer! :)
The only difference between light and dark is the ability to tell the difference.
Blue_Spawn
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:09 am

Post by Blue_Spawn »

Those are some valid points, but it seems like you still haven't addressed the fact that the human mind has an almost full potential to wake up (upon desire) once it realizes it is dreaming.

Covenant when "realizing that he was dreaming" tried to reject it on several occasions.
Mystikan
Woodhelvennin
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:56 pm
Location: South Australia
Contact:

Post by Mystikan »

Hmmm... I can see where you're coming from, but my own experience is that when I go to sleep here, I "wake up" in Arnagest and it feels like I am awake there. The only way I seem able to leave it is to pass out or go to sleep there, so I wake up back here. I can't just "wake up" from it the way one would from a "normal" dream. Yet I treat it as a dream; that's the only way I know how to interpret it. I couldn't live with some of the things I've done in Arnagest if I thought it was actually real. I think TC felt the same way about the Land. How else can one deal with the real/impossible? Traditional dream psychology doesn't cover every base, and that's the point I'm making.
The only difference between light and dark is the ability to tell the difference.
Blue_Spawn
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:09 am

Post by Blue_Spawn »

I suppose I disagree with so many due to the way I was brought up. There are certain things I have been taught that shouldn't even be pretended. I know for sure that I would never rape a woman in a dream (or even a game), even while thinking/knowing that it is unreal. Though I suppose some people would consider it okay since it wouldn't be "real" to them. That's why they understand Covenant better. I guess it matters according to your own personality.
Guest

Post by Guest »

Blue_Spawn wrote:I suppose I disagree with so many due to the way I was brought up. There are certain things I have been taught that shouldn't even be pretended. I know for sure that I would never rape a woman in a dream (or even a game), even while thinking/knowing that it is unreal. Though I suppose some people would consider it okay since it wouldn't be "real" to them. That's why they understand Covenant better. I guess it matters according to your own personality.
I can understand that point of view. I also regard rape as an atrocity and it is one thing I have never done either here or in Arnagest. However, in the Arnagest universe, I have caused the deaths of untold millions of people, either by actively expediting attacks on specified worlds, or by simply standing back and watching the destruction when I could have prevented it. But in all these cases, the worlds under attack invariably posed a potentially greater threat if allowed to continue unchecked on their current course. The key word here is potentially. These decisions are made on the strength of Cultural Semantics reports that indicate most probable outcomes of a particular sequence of events occurring on a world or a number of worlds. So it is a kind of pre-emptive judgement, and many of the individuals who get slaughtered are themselves innocent of any wrongdoing. That's hard to live with in and of itself, even if it is only a dream. But my point here is, I'm not really in a position to just ignore it and hope the problems just go away - I have to make some kind of a decision. And I'm not always "myself" when I make them - I often function as part of a "Gestalt" supermind that gives me many reasons as to why I must act a certain way. My will is not always my own.

With this in mind, and bearing in mind that one cannot always control one's reactions in dreams (ever have a dream where you're running away from something you can't see and tried to actually stop running?) can you really say you'd NEVER rape someone? You could, for example, consider it a test of your moral fibre. After all, what good is morality if you do not know how deep it runs? Dreams are a good test of personal conviction. As a personal example, I can say unequivocally that I know I am not gay. How do I know this? Because I once meditated myself in a fantasy mode and forced myself to picture myself with another male. My innate reaction was one of repugnance, not desire. That's not to say I hate gays - what others feel is their own business - I just know that it's not for me. My own moral fibre opposes it.

Now, you state that rape is wrong. You know that your own moral fibre opposes it. But how strong is your opposition? How do you know that NO circumstances exist under which you would rape someone if you've never questioned it, searched it? Confronting one's own inner Despiser is a terrible thing, and rest assured, we all have snakes in our personal Edens. Covenant raped Lena. He knew, for the rest of the story, that it was something that was utterly repugnant to him - that it was something he'd never actually want to do. He'd questioned it, tested it in a "dream".

Let me give you a small Arnagest-style test, of the sort I had to complete in my younger years when I was "growing up" in Arnagest:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultural Semantics - Case Study: Subjective Ethics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are dealing with a culture on an emerging world, one that is on the brink of achieving interstellar travel. This world is known as Latheria, and the indigenes the Latherii. The predominant interstellar culture in the surrounding systems is that of Earthlike Humans (a la Star Trek, to give you a known point of reference). The Humans are a race whose culture grants females and males alike equal social and political rights, and gives females the right of mate choice. The Latherii are apelike beings whose males force the females to function purely as breeding engines. They impregnate the females using a process Humans would regard as "rape". This is a biological requirement of the species, as the pain inflicted during the "rape" triggers the release of hormones essential to fertilisation of the ova. This method of reproduction has been a cultural standard among the Latherii for thousands of years, and neither the males nor the females have countenanced any alternatives. As an emissary of the Arnagest, your status as a powerful political negotiator is known to the Humans and demonstrable to the Latherii. Your task is to ensure a politically stable interaction between the Latherii and the surrounding Human worlds. Describe in your own words how you would expedite this process. Explain the reasoning behind your decisions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be very interested to see how you answer this question. You might be surprised at what the answer will reveal to you about your own inner nature. If you do, I'll give you my own answer and explain why I answered it as I did.
User avatar
FizbansTalking_Hat
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 10:40 pm
Location: Ontario Canada

Re: Lord Foul's Bane Chapters 7 & 8

Post by FizbansTalking_Hat »

aliantha wrote:These are the chapters that make folks throw the book across the room.

The central theme to my questions is why?:
  • Why does Covenant rape Lena?

    Why does Covenant have to rape Lena? In terms of the narrative, in terms of moving the book forward, why did SRD choose this particular abomination to visit unto poor Tom? We were just starting to like him, kind of, and then he goes and violates a virgin.

    Why does this frustrate so many people, to the point where they throw the book across the room and never come back? (And the corollary: Why did we all stick it out?)

    And why, oh, why, once Atiaran finds out what Covenant has done to his daughter, why does she not just let Triock kill him?

This exact thing happened to me, the whole throwing hte book across the room.

I'm new to this so please no attacks if I say something completely off base or wrong, and keep in mind I've only just finished LFB, and this is my first read of the entire chronicles, haven't even begun the second book of the 1st chron. Anyways.

Why does Covenant rape Lena?
I think that the main reason TC rapes Lena is that, his senses are overwhelmed. Having gone from a man who is despised by all, who can't feel, can't touch, basically shut off from teh rest of the world, to go from that to the other opposite, having feeling, to being given new power, new senses, it maybe just overloaded his brain. Maybe all the build up hate that he's been feeling for himself, the world, the people around him and his town who despise him, because of that hate, he felt compelled to imflict the same style of hate on someone else, someone pure, virginal, happy, he wanted to inflict the same pain he's recieved on someone who was like him. I think Lena represents the pureness, the virgin aspect of his life before his illness. He had everything going for him, happy life, good book career, a wife, beautiful kid and then its all taken away from him.

Why does Covenant have to rape Lena? In terms of the narrative, in terms of moving the book forward, why did SRD choose this particular abomination to visit unto poor Tom? We were just starting to like him, kind of, and then he goes and violates a virgin.
I think that in terms of story, this is necessary b/c it lets us all know at the begining that this man is flawed, he has issues, he's not a regular hero, he's just a man, trying to keep on going, to get to the end, whatever that end may be. I have a tough time answering this one, b/c I don't know where it's leading to, and to be honest, I am a bit confused as to why SRD would do this to us. Anyways, still great still emotional. Love it.

Why does this frustrate so many people, to the point where they throw the book across the room and never come back? (And the corollary: Why did we all stick it out?)
I think the reason that most people throw the book, set it down, whatever they do to kind of get away from this scene is b/c its so vivid. It's an awful scene, very unexpected, cruel and hateful, and maybe it gives us a look at a darker aspect of a hero that we didn't think could happen in a fantasy novel. The major character is supposed to do what is right, but its the opposite in this novel. TC isn't doing whats right all the time, he's just trying to understand, trying to get by, to make a sense of things, he has no real care for others, letting himself have some care, makes his world that much more real, and more scary, b/c what is happening to him, can't happen and shouldn't, and he clings to that b/c it is the only thing that keeps him sane.
I feel that we come back to the scene after our initial disgust b/c in a way we understand what is happening to him, this displacement, it may not excuse his actions, but we feel compelled to find out the results, to see if this flawed and wretched character can make it, can figure it all out. That and its just some amazing writing and fiction.

And why, oh, why, once Atiaran finds out what Covenant has done to his daughter, why does she not just let Triock kill him?
I think thats an easy answer, she doesn't allow his death b/c it would nullify the sacrifice that Lena has made for the greater good. Though Atiaran has so much hate for this man who has taken something pure and destroyed that, she feels she must continue the quest for the greater good, the land as a whole needs healing, and she doesn't yet know his true purpose, all she knows is that she's been given the task of taking him forward as far as she can.

Anyways, I could be way way off in these observations, but its my first read and I'm just getting a sense of things. Cheers.
"...oh my god - there is a nerd stuck beneath my space bar.."
- Jules - 9:34 P.M. Conversation MSN --
Blue_Spawn
<i>Elohim</i>
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:09 am

Post by Blue_Spawn »

Very nicely said Fizbands. All good valid points.

Personaly though (I don't mean to nag or ressurect this thread), but I nearly threw the book more so because of how Lena got treated for her kindness, rather than the vivid/violent nature of the scene. The scene is actually isn't violent as it is disgusting...coarse, rape always is....and, why am I still talking?

*shuts up for good*
Post Reply

Return to “1st Chronicles”