(SPOILER) Should Thomas Covenant have been punished?

[Edena_of_Neith]

I say they were hypocrites.
I do not say that lightly, for I liked the characters of Mhoram and the others.

However, it is hypocrisy to have an Oath of Peace, then tolerate rape ... especially when it is based on expediency (that is, the Land dies if we punish Covenant.)
They were hypocrites.

In the case of Atiarian, Lena's mother, I will not say hypocrite.
I will say instead that Atiarian was a VERY unfortunate mother put into a VERY BAD situation without any way out.

Covenant said that the Land was a dream.
However, he could feel pain in this dream (as he did, when Triock cut his hand open.)
Dream or no dream, then, a punishment inflicted on Covenant would be as painful as those who did the punishing wished it to be.

Covenant could have had his White Gold Ring taken from him while he was asleep.
Then, he could easily have been overpowered and imprisoned, at Revelstone.
And THEN, justice could have been meted out to the Unbeliever.
If they could not stomach inflicting justice, they could have left this task to others who could.

If Covenant was killed by the inflicting of said justice, this only returned him to his own world once the Lords killed Drool Rockworm ... which they could have done on their own.

When the Lords summoned Covenant the second time, during the Illearth War, he undoubtedly would have had a hostile attitude towards them.
Big deal. He could not escape the Land, once there. He could not use his Wild Magic to attack the Lords - he did not understand his own power sufficiently to use it.
Covenant had nowhere to go. The Army of Lord Foul was coming. The only sanctuaries were those about to come under attack. What would the Unbeliever do ... flee up into the cold mountains and hide out? Freeze to death amidst the snow and ice?
Or maybe, just maybe, Covenant would have been forced to ACCEPT the justice of his punishment, upon his earlier summoning to the Land.
Covenant might have learned responsibility and that actions had consequences that were physically painful, even in a so-called dream.

A responsible Covenant would not have goaded Elena into taking responsibility for the fight against Lord Foul, and getting himself out of it.
Elena would not have been driven to drink from the Seventh Ward, because Covenant would not have exercised his long psychological campaign against her to do just that.
Elena, might have listened to reason, in the end, when Covenant tried (far, far too late) to actually employ reason with her.
Elena, would not have broken the Law of Death.
Elena, would have survived and the Staff of Law would not have been lost.
The Staff of Law, would not have been destroyed in a conflict between a Foul-controlled Elena and Covenant.
The preternatural winter Foul inflicted on the Land, could not have come about.
Foul, once defeated, could not have used the breakage of the Staff and the Law of Death to return.
The Sunbane, would not have been possible.
Foul's possession of Joan, would not have occurred, so he could not have forced Covenant into a no-win situation, as he did.
Covenant would not have been resummoned to the Land, already beaten upon reentry.
Thomas Covenant, would not have died at the end.

In their refusal to punish Thomas Covenant, the Lords sentenced Covenant to death ... in the Real World.
Fate saw to it that Covenant indeed was made to pay the price for his crime ... for his rape of Lena led to Elena, which led to her madness at the Seventh Ward, which led to the breaking of the Law of Death and the Staff of Law, which made possible the return of Lord Foul and the coming of the Sunbane, which ultimately led to Foul possessing Joan and other people in Covenant's world, and forcing Covenant to sacrifice his life for Joan's life.
Had the Lords punished Thomas Covenant when he first arrived in Revelstone, it would have been unpleasant for Covenant, yes ... most unpleasant, I would think (I would hope.) However, Covenant would have lived, in the end.

Why should a criminal be allowed to go scott free after committing a severe crime?
The Lords could NOT make Covenant fight Lord Foul.
What Thomas Covenant did, was not within the control of the Lords to dictate - Covenant would fight or not fight Lord Foul as he pleased.
What the Lords COULD do was to do what they felt was right ... and they felt it was right to allow a rapist to walk in their midst unpunished, and to protect him from those who would punish him.

(sighs) Stephen Donaldson's works were like that. Situations with no good answers, and they protagonists had to find answers anyways, whether they liked it or not.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Mhoram said to Covenant, in Revelstone: Banner and the other Bloodguard would slay you instantly if you attacked a resident of this city, but they would also lay their lives down to protect you if someone attacked you here.

Does justice and law prevail only in Revelstone?
Is it ok for justice and the law to be set aside, because the crime occurred outside Mithil Stonedown?
Mithil Stonedown was within the legal and national jurisdiction of Revelstone - are we saying Revelstone's laws and the concepts of justice upheld by the Lords, do not apply there?

Since when does Thomas Covenant get Carte Blanche? (Remember my Give Your Players Carte Blanche thread?)
Since when did he earn Carte Blanche?
Since when did he deserve Carte Blanche?
And since when do the Lords KNOW the Land is doomed, if they punish the Unbeliever?
How is it they can deign to predict what Thomas Covenant will do?
Thomas Covenant, is his own person, and does what he wants, and his behavior is beyond any prediction ... a fact the Lords know all too well.

 

[Umbran]

I say they were hypocrites.

Okay, fine. That's all well and good. But you aren't looking at the end of your world, now are you? It's very easy to point fingers and say "Hypocracy!" when you're safe and sound in your own home.

It doesn't matter what the Lords knew. It's what they could risk that matters. Punishing Covenant was simply too large a risk to take. The saying goes, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." Would it be fair to everyone else in the world to doom them? How can we possibly construe that as upholdiing justice and the peace?

Or, to use another plattitude - punishing Covenant would too likely be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Upholding justice isn't particularly meaningful if it means there will be no world in which justice can exist.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Covenant versus Frodo: Expediency does not excuse Covenant

I could apply this kind of logic (expediency) to great leaders and military generals everywhere (but in the fantasy world only, since we do not want the Real World discussed on the ENBoards.)

Let us use Lord of the Rings as an example:

We all know that Frodo is a good person.
We know that Frodo is noble, altruistic, wise, understanding, and extends mercy to Gollum.

But what if Frodo was like Covenant?
What if Frodo, in an insane rage like Covenant's, rapes Rosie Cotton (the young hobbit lass that Sam danced with, and ultimately married.)
What happens then?

Do we say that Frodo, as Ring Bearer, should be exempt from justice for this, because only he can take the Ring to Mount Doom and destroy it? (this assumes nobody else can be trusted with the One Ring, obviously, which WAS the case in the book and the film.)

Should Sam, who loves Rosie, shut up and leave Frodo be?
Should Merry and Pippin, turn the other way and pretend this did not happen?
Should Aragorn ignore it in the face of his own crisis?
Should Gandalf come to the rescue of Frodo (after the hobbits have thrown him in prison awaiting trial on a capital crime), and smash his way into Michel Delving, and extract Frodo by force?
Should Barliman Butterbur (the news would have reached Bree ahead of Frodo, since serious crimes of this sort were unheard of in the Shire) allow such a felon to stay in his Inn?
Should the people of Bree even welcome such a felon and his companions into their town?
Should the elves of Rivendell welcome Frodo and help him?

One could argue that Frodo is not a fit bearer for the Ring (as his crime shows) and it should be taken from him by force, and given to another Ring-Bearer.
BUT ...
Who? Who? There is nobody else. That was made clear in the books. Anyone else would fail, for they would be either too strong (and the Ring would tempt them to fall) or too weak (and the Ring would consume them.)

So, one might argue that Frodo must continue to be the Ring-Bearer, in spite of the crime, and hope he manages the impossible ... to put the Ring in the Fire.

Yet, can you imagine Sam, Pippin, and Merry looking the other way?
Gandalf breaking Frodo out of jail?
Barliman welcoming Frodo into the Prancing Pony?
The men of Bree, welcoming Frodo into their town?
Aragorn, befriending Frodo.
The elves, welcoming Frodo and wishing to help him?

In effect, this is what the Lords of Revelstone, and the others in the know about Covenant, DID do.
An equivalent, in LOTR, would be for ALL of the above actions mentioned to come true (i.e., Sam does look the other way, Gandalf does break Frodo out of jail, Barliman does welcome him, etc.)

It is unimaginable that the characters of Lord of the Rings would have tolerated such behavior on the part of Frodo (just as it is unimaginable that Frodo would actually commit such a crime.)
They would not tolerate it, even if this risked the loss of Middle Earth to Sauron.
So, why is it that Covenant is tolerated, in a situation akin to the one in LOTR (the situations are comparable.)
Why is it, that Covenant can be tolerated for henious crimes, when such crimes would not be tolerated in LOTR?

Why can't Covenant be held to the standards Frodo was held to?
Frodo was just as frail and mortal as Covenant.
Frodo faced the same impossible odds Covenant did.
Frodo faced a situation ever bit as unreasonable and unfair (to Frodo himself) as Covenant did.

Covenant's Unbelief and leprosy are not adequate excuses.
Heck, Frodo - were he to somehow go temporarily insane and commit such a deed - would never make excuses for himself, and would submit himself to justice at once.

Why is it tolerable for Covenant to commit crimes where others can not, would not, and certainly should not?

- - -

When I posted my Give Your Players Carte Blanche post - which was meant as humor - everyone laughed themselves silly, and rightfully so.
I made the ridiculous argument that characters who save the world should be given the right to do ANYTHING they want, such as take all the treasure of the kingdom, kidnap and sleep with the queen, be above all the laws, and otherwise be above the system in all ways. While the king and everyone else could only watch, and do nothing.
What else, argued I, was a more worthy reward for those who saved the entire world?

It would seem the Lords of Revelstone would not be laughing, were they to have somehow read my humorous thread.
They would take it seriously.
They would implement it.
Implement it they did, when they excused Covenant.
Covenant, could do anything he wanted, had total Carte Blanche, because he was going to save the world.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Covenant versus Frodo: Expediency does not excuse Covenant

Let us use Lord of the Rings as an example:

Which is to say "let us compare apples to oranges". The two may both be epic fantasies, with a great evil loooming over the world, but the moral sensibilities behind each are thoroughly dissimilar. They were written decades apart, and each bears teh earmarks of their age.

LotR is like D&D - it has a simplified morality. There is good, there is evil, and everybody knows the difference. There's no grey area, no real moral quandries. That was a deliberate choice - Tolkien thought mankind waas over-complicating life, and he wanted a return to a simpler, more idyllic time. So long as heros stick to the good, they win, in the long run.

In The Land, there's good, there's evil, and there's Man (represented by Covenant). Covenant is one big walking moral grey area. The introduction of moral ambiguity into The Land is the only thing that can save it - but it's made clear that this same ambinguity can destroy it.

So, in the end, covenant can be tolerated for heinous crimes where such would not be tolerated in LotR because the authors had vastly different takes on what constitutes "proper morality". We can compare and contrast the two works in the hopes of gaining some understanding, but one does not constitute a moral ruler for the other.

 

[Storm Raven]

However, it is hypocrisy to have an Oath of Peace, then tolerate rape ... especially when it is based on expediency (that is, the Land dies if we punish Covenant.)

If they emulate Lord Foul by taking vengeance, then they become Lord Foul.

Covenant could have had his White Gold Ring taken from him while he was asleep.
Then, he could easily have been overpowered and imprisoned, at Revelstone.
And THEN, justice could have been meted out to the Unbeliever.

You don't get it do you? Covenant didn't derive his power from the ring, that was only a symbol. Covenant was the power of wild magic. That is why Lord Foul was unable to overcome him in the final confrontation.

If Covenant was killed by the inflicting of said justice, this only returned him to his own world once the Lords killed Drool Rockworm ... which they could have done on their own.

A proposition completely unsupported by the book. The Lords were only able to overcome Drool's forces because Covenant unleashed the power of wild magic to create a lava flow that consumed the ur-viles. The Lord's own forces were being slaughtered until that point.

Covenant had nowhere to go. The Army of Lord Foul was coming. The only sanctuaries were those about to come under attack. What would the Unbeliever do ... flee up into the cold mountains and hide out? Freeze to death amidst the snow and ice?

Or he could just go to Lord Foul and give the white gold to him directly.

Foul, once defeated, could not have used the breakage of the Staff and the Law of Death to return.

That is not what allowed Lord Foul to return. He could return because he was not truly defeated, the Illearth Stone still existed among other things.

Thomas Covenant, would not have died at the end.

Lord Foul could not have been destroyed any other way, no matter what Covenant had done at any point in the story. The wild magic had to be purged from within, and the only way to do that would be for its embodiment to sacrifice himself.

I think you missed much of the point of the story.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

The Elohim?

(sighs)

I might have not gotten some of the points of Donaldson's story.
Donaldson's Chronicles, sometimes make my head hurt. They certainly made me frustrated at times.

I am still trying to figure out just where and how the Elohim went wrong.
That they went wrong, is not in question. Findail said himself they misinterpreted their Weird.
Still, it isn't quite clear to me what happened to the Elohim, or in what way they went wrong ... if they misinterpreted their Weird, how did they misinterpret it, and why?