Kevin's Watch

The Gradual interview is a joy.

SRD wrote:Of course, Lord Foul isn't *really* the same in the first and second trilogies. In "The Second Chronicles," he's not only smarter: his larger aims are more clearly defined. Now it's not simply "DESPAIR FOR EVERYONE while I secretly destroy the Arch of Time": it's "Despair for you and you and you SO YOU'LL DESTROY THE ARCH FOR ME." If you see what I mean. And those larger aims will be even more clearly defined in "The Last Chronicles" (plus I think Lord Foul is still getting smarter).

So, what do you think the Despiser is up to now?

Despair for just you SO YOU'LL DESTROY THE ARCH FOR ME?

I'LL MISLEAD YOU INTO SERVING ME AND DESTROYING THE ARCH, and you'll despair about it later (briefly)?

Despair and Hell of Earth for everyone, SO DESTROYING THE ARCH BECOMES A RATIONAL ACT OF KINDNESS?

For sure, Lord Foul has become a more nuanced schemer. He has even reached the point where he thinks evil ends may justify good means and sounds noticeably less like a textbook example of a clinical narcissistic disorder.

EDIT: Doh, I forgot to mention that in addition to worrying about getting free, Lord Foul is now worrying about STAYING FREE, which brings us to the plan concerning Linden.

Despair and understand that you'll need to destroy the Arch for yourself...

..I'd say it means three more books of Good Reading!

Nerdanel wrote:The Gradual interview is a joy.

SRD wrote:Of course, Lord Foul isn't *really* the same in the first and second trilogies. In "The Second Chronicles," he's not only smarter: his larger aims are more clearly defined. Now it's not simply "DESPAIR FOR EVERYONE while I secretly destroy the Arch of Time": it's "Despair for you and you and you SO YOU'LL DESTROY THE ARCH FOR ME." If you see what I mean. And those larger aims will be even more clearly defined in "The Last Chronicles" (plus I think Lord Foul is still getting smarter).

So, what do you think the Despiser is up to now?

Despair for just you SO YOU'LL DESTROY THE ARCH FOR ME?

I'LL MISLEAD YOU INTO SERVING ME AND DESTROYING THE ARCH, and you'll despair about it later (briefly)?

Despair and Hell of Earth for everyone, SO DESTROYING THE ARCH BECOMES A RATIONAL ACT OF KINDNESS?

For sure, Lord Foul has become a more nuanced schemer. He has even reached the point where he thinks evil ends may justify good means and sounds noticeably less like a textbook example of a clinical narcissistic disorder.

EDIT: Doh, I forgot to mention that in addition to worrying about getting free, Lord Foul is now worrying about STAYING FREE, which brings us to the plan concerning Linden.

I like option three.

I find it interesting that SRD himself, in addition to some of the members here, thinks of Foul as becoming "smarter". His First Chrons activities still seem the most ingenious to me, and I've always thought he gets less intelligent with each series. If he manages to pull off option three or something equally dastardly, I may have to revise that opinion.

Essentially in the first trilogy I think it could be said that Lord Foul was using a very skillfully used version of the Even Bigger Hammer strategy. In the Second Chronicles he took a subtler route and was therefore spared the effort of building lots of huge armies to beat the peoples of the Land into submission or death. Also, I think the Sunbane was vastly more clever in its cruelty than the simple unnatural winter Foul had used earlier.

I think a flaw Lord Foul has shown is impatience. If he had but waited and made the Sunbane reach the cycle of one day and spread beyond the Land, Covenant would have had a much harder time of it and probably wouldn't have been able to succeed. There would have been no Andelain, since Hile Troy would have been eventually overwhelmed, no Giants to take Covenant to the One Tree so that Vain would get to share the essence of it, and the Elohim would have been turned into Lord Foul's puppets, making a new Staff of Law and the healing of the Land impossible even if Covenant had somehow managed to become the Arch of Time anyway, despite the much greater and more unrelieved despair heaped upon him in this version.

Perhaps in the Last Chronicles Lord Foul has learned of this and will strive to make the universe a hell forever (like Drool would have done, but more imaginative and with Foul in charge) so that even if none of the white gold wilders can get the universe destroyed, the Creator will have to do it to end the suffering. Perhaps this is Lord Foul's plan B or C in case something happens to Joan.

You know, with the Laws of Life and Death broken and the skurj on the loose in the manner of the vision near the beginning, the Land could end up looking a lot like the Christian Hell. Even death wouldn't necessarily mean escape in that situation.

Nerdanel wrote:Essentially in the first trilogy I think it could be said that Lord Foul was using a very skillfully used version of the Even Bigger Hammer strategy. In the Second Chronicles he took a subtler route and was therefore spared the effort of building lots of huge armies to beat the peoples of the Land into submission or death. Also, I think the Sunbane was vastly more clever in its cruelty than the simple unnatural winter Foul had used earlier.

I think a flaw Lord Foul has shown is impatience. If he had but waited and made the Sunbane reach the cycle of one day and spread beyond the Land, Covenant would have had a much harder time of it and probably wouldn't have been able to succeed. There would have been no Andelain, since Hile Troy would have been eventually overwhelmed, no Giants to take Covenant to the One Tree so that Vain would get to share the essence of it, and the Elohim would have been turned into Lord Foul's puppets, making a new Staff of Law and the healing of the Land impossible even if Covenant had somehow managed to become the Arch of Time anyway, despite the much greater and more unrelieved despair heaped upon him in this version.

Well, yes, but you should also consider another possibility... I agree that in the First Chronicles, Foul's strategy was remarkably straightforward (although the sheer manipulation of the Lords so that they would eventually break the Law of Death and fulfill his self-made prophecy that he would "have the command of life and death" is intriguing), whereas in the Second, he was quite subtle. But I think he had a very clear idea of when to summon Covenant - after all, he could have waited for another generation in the Land, and that would have been enough to set the Sunbane on the one-day cycle, even though it would have meant... how much, 10-15 days in Covenant's world?

No, I think he consciously chose that moment because it offered him the greatest chances of success. Remember, "it boots nothing to avoid his snares, for they are ever beset with other snares"; his main plan was for Covenant to fall into despair and willingly give him the ring, true, but differently from the First Chronicles, in the Second Chronicles he plans contingencies. So, he sets up "short-cuts" to the destruction of the Arch of Time, making sure Covenant will encounter several such pitfalls before reaching him. So:

1) He poisons Covenant with Marid's venom, making him more powerful, so that if Covenant were ever to lose control, especially after the various relapses, he might well destroy the Arch without wanting to;

2) Even if that doesn't work, he has Gibbon show Covenant, through the Soothtell, what the reason for the Sunbane was, so Covenant goes off in search of another Staff of Law - which Foul knows he cannot get, since the Worm had been touched once by Berek and would not suffer another attempt. So, Covenant's attempt at taking the branch of the One Tree will likely trigger a battle between him and the Worm, possibly breaking the Arch of Time;

3) Even if that doesn't work, he has a Rider give Covenant another relapse when he's about to fight the Clave; as the Clave can call upon the power of the Banefire, Covenant will supposedly need wild magic to survive, and after being just poisoned again (the bees), he might use too much power and break the Arch;

4) Even if all of the above do not work, by that time Covenant will be so broken, poisoned, and lost in his despair that he will be willing to give Foul the ring.

I think Foul's impatience shows up only when he does get the ring - at that point, he is so eager to break the Arch, seeing as how the goal he has tried to attain for thousands of years is finally in his grasp, that he overlooks hints that not everything is how it seems. That, I think, is Foul's undoing.

I see impatience and arrogance in Foul's lack of having made sure about the other factors in the Earth that could have impacted his fine plans. For example the Elohim were powerful and provided a crucial component in the Staff of Law. This is hindsight, of course, but I think Foul could have skipped the entire quest for the One Tree from his plans and replaced it by making the other plans all the more foolproof, or could have arranged the quest himself using his own undercover minions as Covenant's companions. Covenant had his senses truncated by his leprosy again so he could have been accompanied by a Raver and never noticed it (although this scenario must be careful not make Covenant think the Raver is a more appropriate ring wielder than Covenant himself).

Interestingly, in the Last Chronicles there is the question of how much of Linden's quest for the Staff of Law has gone exactly as Lord Foul planned it... Also I wonder about what has been happening outside the Land.

If I was a Dark Lord I would probably spend half an eternity making truly foolproof plans.

Here is a snippet from a Locus Interview which I think bears on this question.

In [url=www.locusmag.com/2004/Issues/09Donaldson.html]link[/url] was wrote:Returning now to epic fantasy is complicated by the fact that my readers have a right to expect me to deal in archetypes. But because my priorities have shifted, in ‘The Last Chronicles' I will probably spend more time than any reader has ever expected on the motivation of the bad guy. When I wrote Lord Foul's Bane, Lord Foul the Despiser was explicitly archetypal, a sort of undying and unmotivated force for darkness. But now I believe that he too has reasons for what he does, and, more than ever before, I care about what those reasons might be. For example, I’m aware now, as I was not 20 years ago, that what this being feels is despair. He wants to hurt so many other people because he needs an outlet for his pain. He has a story, and he deserves dignity.

Think on that, and be dismayed!

(This utterance by SRD is one of two clues which gives rise to my personal theory of the ending, which I will not utter, because it would serve no purpose.)

That utterance also gives clues to my theory (which I have tried to write a topic about but couldn't find enough evidence to justify it) that the "dilemma faced by Lord Foul" (from the Gradual Interview) which is represented by the caesures is suicide. The method of the suicide would be causing an irreconcilable temporal paradox a.k.a. awakening the Worm at the World's End in person. (I think I really should write about this and related things in the excellent creation myth thread. I've been gradually constructing an even more unified version of the various myths.)

I think the possibility of Lord Foul committing suicide and taking everything with him if his plans fail this time could provide an interesting dynamic. Do the good guys encourage him or try to stop him?

Great quote WayFriend...spawns all sorts of speculation...

--A

Yes, well done Wayfriend (again) you are indeed well named!

I have been thinking along the same lines for a while and posted recently on another thread.

Finn wrote:

It's my suspicion that Foul's role in this series will be different, perhaps radically so, maybe marginalised and struggling for attention or even playing for the other side against some other threat. I also feel that Foul needs to be explained more in terms of his being and substance and where he comes from/is going to, motivations etc.

It's this that make SRD such a delight for me, he has made Foul a bit more than just a generic baddie and I think that angle has loads of room to astonish. That's what SRD does, he suprises, delights and astonishes us with twists and turns; a revisit to the Sunbane would probably not do that for me.

I think that to explore further the good/evil thing we need to define the evil better. That means sources, motivations and some understanding of the values of evil. It is a very necessary part of the books that the reader understand the value of events.

By this I mean that there has to be a cost associated with deeds and actions, so that there is context, that relates to the scale of the deed or action and therefore puts a relative value upon it.

Without understanding Foul we don't truly appreciate why he is what he is and we don't truly appreciate what it takes to beat him.

Up until now we have had only TC's passion as a guide, we may not have that anymore and therefore need to set benchmarks of sorts to measure evil, but also to understand the extent of evil and what depths have been fathomed in creating such malice.

Wayfriend, are you are being cagey or maybe coy about your thoughts vis-a-vis the ending? I think we will see it all, the arch will be broken, possibly to be re-made, Foul may be in turn good and bad. Some part of me feels that Foul will be redeemed and that TC may be Foul and that the whole saga has been one of necessity with Foul/TC having to manipulate our TC for an ultimate greater good.

In all seriousness, Lord Foul always comes across as a super powerful entity, with all the disabilities that come with being super powerful....he lacks insight into how the less powerful might apply themselves.

Sure he knows what people have tried before, but he lacks the experience and the imagination to actually see all the possibilities that might undo him. Lord Foul needs to surrender his power to others in such a way as to give him some time to get to know what it's like being not so powerful, and what it's like to despair..... while setting it up so that they'll give him his power back once he's learned what he needs to learn.

Hope you enjoyed that little bit of babbling...

finn wrote:Wayfriend, are you are being cagey or maybe coy about your thoughts vis-a-vis the ending?

Nah. I wish I had said that a different way; I didn't mean to be coy. I should have just said that I consider that paragraph to be one of the best insights we have into how the series will conclude. (But I really don't want to post any ideas on how I think it will end - there's absolutelty no upside I can see to that.)

I agree that Foul's role will be different. In fact, as I read Runes I was hoping that 'chatty Foul' would be more central to the story, so that we could learn more about him. Think about it - we almost never have seen Foul react to anything before the final confrontation. So we haven't learned much about him, really.

SRD himself contributes to our thread today.

(dlbpharmd quoted this in the Gradual Interview thread, but I though discussion would be best served over hear in the Runes forum.)

Guy Andrew Hall: Is it my imagination, or is Lord Foul actually much weaker in this chronicle?

Since his defeat was of his own hand, and seemed to be so utterly complete, I would think he had to have actually did more damage by expending all of his essence in attacking Thomas Covenant at the end of "The White Gold Wielder" then occurred in the ritual of desecration or the battle between him and Covenant in TPTP. As such, he would simply not be as restored as in the other two chronicles.

Oh, and I like how you've lowered the tone of despair and doubt in this chronicle. It shows that what had transpired earlier did indeed result in the personal growth of Linden.

However, I have a bone to pick with you. You make several mentions of Covenant being dead, even by Covenant himself, then turn around and have him appear at the end of the book. That is just not nice. Not nice at all. Because I was really enjoying the development of the story. I could shake my head yes, that makes sense for this or that to happen.

I had no problem with Anele being the son of Sunder and Hollian, and even thought such at the first mention of Linden perceiving his Earthpower. Having Cail’s son be a character was flat out ingenious.

But to bring Covenant back? I should have listened to my little voice at the back of my head that said "He does protests too much." But no..... I had to enjoy the book too much, get into it's flow, care about the characters and find myself railing at the Masters for being so incredibly pig headed and narrowminded. So, I was caught off guard when you supposedly brought Thomas Covenant into the story.

Now, will you please hurry up and get the next book out! I can’t stand the wait.
___________________

Sorry, this will have to be filed under "spoilers."

Someone (Einstein?) defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." By that definition, Lord Foul isn't weaker: he's smarter. Sure, he's keeping more of his cards hidden these days--which may give rise to the impression that he has fewer of them. But (if you'll forgive a violent change of imagery) I think he's simply seen what happens when he relies on cannon-fodder (literally in the first trilogy, metaphorically in the second), so he's changed his tactics: now he's brought in the battleships and is using his long guns. In other words, he's manipulating some very powerful proxies instead of risking himself more directly. Does that make him *weaker*? Well, from some perspectives smarter *is* weaker. But if you were Linden Avery, and you looked at Lord Foul that way, you would be in real trouble.

As for your objection (?) to Covenant's appearance at the end of "Runes": what have I ever done as a writer to give you the impression that you can't trust me?

(03/01/2006)

Who is the smarter Foul manipulating? Whose a Foul Proxy?

Scourge come to mind. Elohim. Esmer.

Kastenessen?

Thomas Covenant?

I think Lord Foul is directly or indirectly manipulating every one of significance. Linden is there because of him. I think the Demondim are also there because of him. I think Esmer might be knowingly in Foul's service. And so on.

In particular, I have developed a theory on how the Haruchai can be serving Lord Foul without having the slightest idea that they are doing so. We know that the Haruchai use mind-speech among themselves and made the decision to become Masters in an extended mind-speech debate. We also know from Nom's case that the Ravers would seem to have a mind-speech ability similar to the Haruchai. Now, put two and two together and you face the possibility of Ravers being able to pose as Haruchai even when they are not actually possessing any of them! They would subvert the Haruchai decision making processes and make each of the Haruchai think that the majority supported the idea of becoming Masters. In essence, supernatural election fraud.

I doubt it's that complicated. The suppression of EarthPower in the Land seems enough of a service to Foul to me.

--A

Agreed - one of Foul's proxies created the Dirt.

Ooh ooh - don't forget the Demondim. Are they proxies or cannonfodder?

I think Kevin's Dirt wasn't created on Lord Foul's suggestion, or he would have taken the credit for it. I have my own theory, of which I have already written about. In the process of writing this post I have just come up with another theory, an even more radical one than my previous one. Posting here has that effect.

Anyway, I've been thinking about the necessity of freedom. I have come to think Joan has actually zero chance of really breaking down the Arch of Time, although she can damage it. Consider the fact that Herem is allowed to possess her! Also, in the Second Chronicles Lord Foul goes in quite a bit of effort that he could have avoided if he just had fetched Joan and made her destroy the Arch piecemeal, Last Chronicles style. It would have been lengthy, but I think it would have been faster than the complex business with Covenant. According to my calculations, Joan would have taken about six months Land time to destroy the Arch, assuming that she was transported to the Land immediately and her caesure-creation frequency is constant in her local time. (I think it's likely faster in the Land.) Six months in the Land equals to 12 hours in the "real world", and thus the Arch could already have been destroyed before Joan had walked all the way to the Haven Farm.

And that's why I don't think this scenario is possible.