Fantasy Book Club Series discussion

It has seemed to me that we've seen a lot more about how magic works in Peril's Gate than in previous books. I mean, we've gotten the basics before and seen Koriani and F7 working magic and Arithon back when he could still do so, and for that matter we've seen Arithon use his Masterbard's talent evoking magic before this, but it just really feels like we're seeing magic in new ways here.

Perhaps the most obvious example was when Arithon initiates Jieret into the mysteries, and through Jieret we saw a little more clearly what magic entails. Again, we already "knew" a lot of this in one way or another, but seeing him go from uninitiated to possessing mage-sight offered us the opportunity to realize what a gap there is between the mage-sighted and everyone else, because we saw someone cross that gap. Previously, what we've seen has been from people for whom these things are old hat, taken for granted.

We also got a view of the limitations of Koriani magic through the reference to all the things Elaira has been learning in her time with Ath's adepts, and I expect we'll see more along these lines.

And the scene that I referenced in the Dakar thread also did something to deepen our understanding and appreciation of spellcraft. I don't have anything profound to add just now, but perhaps this could kick off further discussion of the topic.

I agree. Janny has gradually unveiled the system of magic in Athera until I almost view the planet as another character in the story. I think the first time that I began to appreciate the delicate balance was when Morriel pulled her trick of attempting to throw off F7 superiority by disturbing the balance during the equinox and transmuted herself into Selidie. The catastrophic consequences of that act drove home the importance of the Law of the Major Balance.

And seeing 'mage sight' through Jieret's eyes was very illuminating. His inability to do what he had to do in light of his ability to see the truth in the moment, the sacredness of life, the consequences of everything was most moving. This also gives new insight into Arithon's sensitivity.

Indeed, in light of Arithon's geas of compassion and farsight, the additional burden of mage craft would almost seem to make life unbearable for him.

I'm particularly intrigued by the role of music and the magic that it is able to muster. Music is a very powerful voice, even in our own world. I was listening to a movie review yesterday and the reviewer mentioned the song 'Come All Ye Fair and Tender Ladies' and stirred my memory of the evocative sorrow the song creates and it reminded me of this series.

Also, Janny's post in the Dakar thread reminds me of the new sight we have into the sorcery that contains the wraiths within Rockfell Peak in this book. Through Dakar's eyes, we see the astounding speed of Karadmon and Luhaine weaving sigils that are unimaginably complex and intricate -- giving us an insight into the power of the sorcerers -- even the discorporate ones.

Re-opening this topic not with any fresh insights, but with some questions. Perhaps someone who's read with a better eye for these things or who's read more than once can help me out here: can we compare the magic Arithon employs to that of the F7 (they seem pretty similar) to that of the Koriani? I thinking of how it functions, what it can do, and the role of the spell crystal compared to those who don't use such devices. I feel like I've got the basic idea but I'd like help in clarifying what we know and what we don't know.

I'm not sure, either, John, but I think the Koriani magic works against the energies inherent in the planet Athera, and the F7 works with it -- the Koriani restricts, the F7 amplifies. Arithon's magic is also very in tune with the planet's basic energies. We know the Koriani crystals come from another planet. The Prime Matriarch has to harness the magic within the crystals = hence the evil and anger that is stored there. I keep thinking that at some point there's going to be a terrific backlash with that, and I dread the day all that malevolence gets unleashed. When Elaira is in the haven of Ath's brotherhood, she gets a hint of how limited the Koriani magic is - but it isn't clear to me how so. And I know 'haven' isn't the right word, but can't think of it right now.

Hostel? Hanging out with Ath's adepts and all the backpackers seeing Athera Through the Back Door? :)

Certainly it seems that F7 magic works through permissions, working with the world rather than against it, while Koriani magic is more about domination and imposing their will. It seems to be the same basic talent, though, that allows access to either type of magic, as I recall some reference to the Koriani taking in girls with natural talents. Likewise, all the various hedge witches and whatnot seem to have the same talent, just not schooled in either system.

Do the Koriani use Mage Sight? I would think so, but I can't remember it ever being referenced.

And those crystals... especially with what we see through Elaira's journey in this book, I want to know more (I also want to remember better what I already read on the subject!). Can someone point me to exactly where it was that we learn so much about the crystals in Peril's Gate?

It's late so I'm going to let someone else point you. All I remember is the bits with Elaira... also the bit about them being destroyed in salt water... but that was in Grand Conspiracy, wasn't it? And the crystal given to Elaira by the old woman in the market has some remarkable qualities.

John wrote: "Hostel? Hanging out with Ath's adepts and all the backpackers seeing Athera Through the Back Door? :)

Certainly it seems that F7 magic works through permissions, working with the world rather th..."

Answers to your question, John:

The BASIC divide with Fellowship magic and what the Koriathain do would be the Law of the Major Balance. Which simply states: nothing is done without consensual free will.

The consciousness involved MUST be involved by free choice.

From there, the next split would be: what constitutes consciousness. Fellowship perspective views the world by FREQUENCY - and recognizes consciousness by a much MUCH broader definition.

For Koriathain - HUMAN consciousness is the pinnacle reference and all else is subservient. Therefore, to them, a crystal is a tool that amplifies, stores, enhances THEIR HUMAN WILL, not dependent upon cooperative principles.

To the Fellowship, a crystal is a BEING - not human! - not conscious as our five senses recognize - but alive in a frequency beyond normal range. It CAN DO all that the Koriathain accomplish with it - but on a consensual basis, in partnership, the equation shifts to something - other.

There are several places in Peril's Gate where you can reference SOME of these things: look at chapter set IV, subchapter Proving, where Elaira consults with Ath's Adept.

There is a prime example of stone worked in consensual partnership - look at the scene where Sulfin Evend climbs the staircase built by Davien, to arrive at the entrance of Kewar Tunnel. Look at Set XIV, Hunted, and the subchapter Gone to Earth.

At the ending of Grand Conspiracy, (for crystals and perspective into free will usage) see set XIV, Crucible and subset Boltholes (where Arithon accepts and uses the blind lady's crystal)

Also, Peril's Gate chapter XII, subchapter Testament, where Sethvir activates a crystal to imprint a record.

There will be more: in the next two books, ALL of these platforms will be revisted and deepened.

For now, to add the facet of Ath's Brotherhood - they work by the Major Balance, but differ from the Fellowship, who are under an ACTIVE directive to guard the resonance of the planet and hold it open to the frequencies that support Paravian survival...the adepts know all the Fellowship know, but they do not interact with the world under a directive. They build and maintain enclaves of frequency in their 'hostels' - and free will rules there to the point where INFORMED consent, in all its forms, rules - there are no barriers before ignorance. To interact with the adepts, ONE GOES TO THEM. They do not take their awareness abroad in the world, or recruit 'followers', or use what they know to alter the Way of the World - which philosophy says, all are empowered to know All, and to ask is to be answered. Their immense power has no need to inflict change upon this world, because their value system is not anchored to world events - their vision transcends. They will contract weddings and bless fields - and heal, within certain parameters - they always have to be invited or asked.

If you have more questions, fire away.

Some of this stuff will get up close and personal as the story unfolds - and the books stage for the mysteries in Arc IV.

Thank you for that post, Janny. It all fit into my understanding, but it was good to have it confirmed and all laid out in one place.

Before your post, I was looking for some of the sections from Peril's Gate and one that struck me was in "Proving," where Elaira wipes the scrying crystal and almost does the same with her personal crystal. I was struck by a couple related notes on Koriani magic: "All her Koriani arts had been learned by rote, her specialized experience aligned for an herbalists's practice. [...] She realized how little she understood the coiling depths of the powers she engaged day to day, without thought, sheltered beneath the insular traditions fostered by the sisterhood" (121). It strikes me that Koriani magic--at least for the average member of the order?--is a sort of paint-by-numbers magic in which they can work only the spells they've been taught to work. It seems to be like following an old family recipe without really understanding much about cooking.

Maybe I'm projecting here, but it seems like the magic that Arithon, Dakar, Verrain, and the F7 employ (they're all practicing the same sort of magic, right, just at different levels?) is more creative, that they have a better understanding of magic, of an underlying knowledge of--or, anyway, theory of--magic.

But as I think about it, that doesn't seem like a fair description of things--Morriel's grand working to snare Arithon surely involved strongly creative elements. Maybe what I'm really getting stuck on here is just a matter of the hierarchies that are inherent with the K--it seems to fit that they wouldn't want most of their people to know too much, just because they want to keep them firmly in line. The F7 (and the exiles at Rauven), by contrast, seem more inclined to help those with talent develop that potential as fully as they can.

While I'm at it, I'll pull in what Janny said in the Davien's Maze thread: A clarification: Dakar is a spellbinder. Verrain is a master spellbinder. Arithon is a master. There is a difference. [...] The initiations involved have to do with levels of self-awareness, and the 'system' protects itself.

I guess I had a sense that there was a difference, but I hadn't pinpointed what it is. Spell-binder vs. master spell-binder, at least, just seems like a difference of degree (apparently involving levels of self-awareness!). Is "master" in this case yet another degree, or is there also a difference in kind?

John wrote: "Thank you for that post, Janny. It all fit into my understanding, but it was good to have it confirmed and all laid out in one place.

Before your post, I was looking for some of the sections fro..."

John, you are quite correct, with regard to the 'hierarchy' in the Koriathain - a point I'd meant to mention, but lapsed, in the course of laying out the answer. There is a HUGE gulf in awareness between the lower 3 ranks of the Koriathain (the charitable service ranks, denoted by white or silver ribbon) and the 'upper tier' or administrative ranks - denoted by the red. The Koriathian began as a 'secret society' (if you read Sundering Star, the short story) - and they have a HIGHLY structured ranking system designed to control every aspect of the lower orders.

Only the prime has access to all of the knowledge, and her control of the order is supreme.

Creativity breaks boundaries - so there is NOT creativity in the lower orders, particularly when an initiate is confined to a sisterhouse. The order's wandering independents - of which Elaira is one - are a bit different....

All knowledge of power is, to a degree, rote trained in the order. You can get a clue on this from the Prime's view - in several scenes in Ships/Warhost and also, poignantly, in a few scenes in Fugitive Prince and Grand Conspiracy. If you connect the dots, you'll see that the Koriathain only recognize consciousness so far....and at Prime Level - to see further is to fear insanity.

Fellowship knowledge is ALWAYS creative - and even at Dakar's level, when ceremony is invoked to access the pattern, or template, through which the conjury will flow - there is AWARENESS of the living forces involved in that ceremonial interaction.

So it's a matter of vantage - intent sets the stage, but how much is known ABOUT the creative nature or the living forces called into play is key.

Your second point - about the differences between Spellbinder, Master Spellbinder, and Master - that's a bit more technical.

It has to do with KNOWING the inner self and its relationship to the greater cosmos...there are different strata of self awareness - different frequencies of motivation that arise from the subconscious and unconscious mind. The initiate levels 'clear' self-perception in those areas - and basically, refine AWARENESS of intent.

People react and act on what they think, believe, and expect, based in patterns of experience. Many just react, unaware of their underlying motivations - to move through this morass takes self-study and discipline....the deeper into the mysteries, the more those areas come into play, whether the initiate is aware of them, OR NOT.

The master has the clarity to trace those underlying paths of personal causation, and also will possess the disciplined presence to know where to set boundaries AGAINST what should not become manifest. They will have faced their shortfalls far enough and deeply enough to recognize, acknowledge, own, and 'master' them, to the point where they won't fall back into the morass/become victim to their own fears.

There are three layers of frequency to be surveyed and mapped.

Master level, here - don't confuse that with Fellowship or Adept presence - those hold something more.

The system protects itself - because if an aspirant oversteps their own self-awareness, they will fall victim to their own shadows.

This is noted way back in Ch 2 in Mistwraith, when Arithon is sounding inward to know WHAT has upset his inner balance. (He peels the layers, self aware, until he encounters the FALSE psychosis induced by a drug).

Great, thanks for that explanation. It's interesting that, even as a master, Arithon cannot be fully aware of the influence of the Mistwraith's curse, though I suppose it also says quite a lot about the power of that curse, that even as a master, he is unable to untangle it until he sees his previous actions through the lens of Davien's Maze.

John wrote: "Great, thanks for that explanation. It's interesting that, even as a master, Arithon cannot be fully aware of the influence of the Mistwraith's curse, though I suppose it also says quite a lot abou..."

You are correct - he sees a great deal, but not all - and admits as much clearly - to Dakar, after the stock culling in Warhost, and to the Fellowship, at the exchange of the ransom at Ostermere - among other places.

Interesting discussion. I have a few questions/thoughts to add.

So if Dakar is a spellbinder and Verrain a master spellbinder, it seems to me that Verrain had finished his training with the Fellowship. Maybe not finished, but he's made more progress than Dakar. I think Dakar could have been further, but he kept drowning himself with women and drink because of his gift. I think he's had a lot of eye-opening experiences since he's been with Arithon that have opened his eyes and now he wants to learn more.

Who did Verrain apprentice with? Or did he have a rotation with the different members of the Fellowship? How did he get to be assigned to the swamp? (Maybe there's a story to Verrain that could be written.)

Here's another thought, since the Fellowship were directed by dragons so many years ago to protect Athera, I would think they were trained by the dragons and the other Paravians to a certain degree that others who came later will never understand. In essence, even though the Fellowship have trained others, they can never increase the size of their actual Fellowship and no one will have the same understanding and power within Athera, not unless the dragons chose them as well.

Good thoughts, Amelia. We don't know who trained Verrain, or even how old he is. Your thoughts about the dragons are interesting.

When it describes Arithon in the maze being the baby flash burned by Lysaer's fire bolt, and the dragon awakens, I assumed the dragon was somewhere near the maze.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Good thoughts, Amelia. We don't know who trained Verrain, or even how old he is. Your thoughts about the dragons are interesting.

When it describes Arithon in the maze being the baby flash burne..."

The dragon wakened in the course of the maze was meant as a metaphor, for the activation of Desh-thiere's curse, in reliving.

Amelia wrote: "Interesting discussion. I have a few questions/thoughts to add.

So if Dakar is a spellbinder and Verrain a master spellbinder, it seems to me that Verrain had finished his training with the Fel..."

In fact: I have 75 pages of a novella underway telling Verrain's story, in depth. Most of it's written, just the last few scenes to go...no free time, just now, to finish it up, but it's going to happen eventually.

Here are a few NON SPOILER historical facts on Verrain, meantime:

Born at Innish, in Shand, Third Age 4972.
5021, Apprenticed to Luhaine at Daenfal.
5044, first initiation.
5095 - appointed Guardian of Methisle.

The dragons taught the Paravians nothing. Care to speculate the reason behind this?

The Fellowship would not be inclined to induct new members. Can you hazard a guess as to why?

Janny wrote: "Amelia wrote: "Interesting discussion. I have a few questions/thoughts to add.

So if Dakar is a spellbinder and Verrain a master spellbinder, it seems to me that Verrain had finished his training..."

That will be an insightful story to read. Now I have something else to look forward to.

So, the Dragons didn't teach the Paravians... hmm interesting. I've always thought that the Paravians were Ath's messengers or gifts to Athera to help fight the Dragon's Bane. I would think that Ath wouldn't want the Paravians to be like the Dragon's beacause they were sent to fix the problems created by the Dragon's dreams. In addition, I believe the Paravians are also a sign of hope, love and trust of Ath to all others on Athera. I would think that they would somehow be directly linked to Ath and have more of those powers instead of the dragon's dreaming powers. Both very powerful but very different.

So if the Fellowship wouldn't be inclined to induct new members, then if they chose to, they could add someone else? Why wouldn't they, hmm... I would think it would have to do with the whole balance of the world. Adding someone else might throw that off. Or it might not. Or it just might be the whole responsibility of their pact. Maybe they don't want anyone else to carry such a heavy load. Perhaps they just haven't found someone that they thought was capable of taking on the responsibility and power that the job would entail.

Well, there's a little of speculation from me.

I wonder if it has something to do with the number 7, which bears all kinds of magical qualities.

This is from a Google search:

• 7 has a broad selection depending the matter being discussed •

E.G Religion:

- A highly symbolic number in the Hebrew Bible, being, for example, the day on which God rested in Genesis
- The number of nations God told the Hebrews they would displace when they came to Israel. (Deut. 7:1)"When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou"
- The number of ayat in surat al-Fatiha
- The number of heavens in Islamic tradition
- The number of Earths in Islamic tradition
- The numbers seven, seventy, seventy thousand, etc. are also used in Islamic traditions to denote an infinite or high number. In Arabic seventy, seventy thousand, etc. is used to mean infinite. This is because 1 is the smallest, 2 is just after 1, 5 and 10 are exact, 4 and 6 are just before and after 5, 9 is just before 10. This leaves 3, 7, and 8. 8 is closer to the end although it is larger. 8 is also an even number so divisible by 2. Between 3 and 7, 3 is smaller so 7 is chosen to represent infinite.
- The number of the Deadly Sins: lust, avarice, envy, pride, sloth, gluttony and wrath
- The seven terraces of Mount Purgatory (one per deadly sin)
- The number of sacraments in the Roman Catholic faith
- The number of palms in an Egyptian Sacred Cubit
- The number of heads of the beast of the book of Revelation, and of some other monsters, like the hydra
- The minor symbol number of yang from the Taoist yin-yang
- The number of times Cain will be avenged upon for the murder of his brother Abel
- The number of ranks in Mithraism
- The number of gateways traversed by Inanna during her descent into the underworld
Source(s):
Here u'll also find 7 in Mathematics, Sciece, Music, etc...

It gives a link to Wikipedia's article #7

Here's some text from the Wikipedia article:

Mathematics

* Seven, the fourth prime number, is not only a Mersenne prime (since 23 − 1 = 7) but also a double Mersenne prime since it is itself the exponent for another Mersenne prime (127). It is also a Newman-Shanks-Williams prime, a Woodall prime, a factorial prime, a lucky prime, a happy number, a safe prime and the fourth Heegner number.
* Seven is the lowest number which cannot be represented as the sum of the squares of three integers. (See Lagrange's four-square theorem#Historical development.)
* Seven is the aliquot sum of one number, the cubic number 8 and is the base of the 7-aliquot tree.
* n = 7 is the first natural number for which the next statement does not hold: "Two nilpotent endomorphisms from Cn with the same minimal polynomial and the same rank are similar."
* 7 is the only dimension, besides the familiar 3, in which a vector cross product can be defined.
* 999,999 divided by 7 is exactly 142,857. Therefore, when a vulgar fraction with 7 in the denominator is converted to a decimal expansion, the result has the same six-digit repeating sequence after the decimal point, but the sequence can start with any of those six digits.[1] For example, 1/7 = 0.142 857 142.... and 2/7 = 0.285 714 285...
* A seven-sided shape is a heptagon. The regular n-gons for n ≤ 6 can be constructed by compass and straightedge alone, but the regular heptagon cannot. Figurate numbers representing heptagons (including seven) are called heptagonal numbers. Seven is also a centered hexagonal number.
* There are seven frieze groups, the groups consisting of symmetries of the plane whose group of translations is isomorphic to the group of integers.
* There are seven fundamental types of catastrophes.
* Seven is the sum of any two opposite sides on a standard six-sided die. When rolling two standard six-sided dice, seven has a 6 in 36 (or 1/6) probability of being rolled (1–6, 6–1, 2–5, 5–2, 3–4, or 4–3), the greatest of any number.
* The Millennium Prize Problems are seven problems in mathematics that were stated by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. Currently, six of the problems remain unsolved.

So 7 is mathematically important and also magically important. It's 'lucky,' it's 'holy', it's many magical things. It's also the number of times an abused spouse will return to her abuser, interestingly enough. :\

There's lots more interesting stuff in that Wikipedia article.

If I had to venture a guess about why they aren't taking applications, despite desperately needing backup, I would guess that it's just about impossible for anyone to reach the point that they have. In the first place, they have a shared history and a shared failure haunting them. They've been responsible for the destruction of worlds, and being redeemed from that is not an experience that is replicable (or, anyway, you wouldn't want it to be replicated!). So how could anyone be initiated in as an equal? Not to mention that they have thousands and thousands of years of experience (we're over 5600 years into the third age and I don't know how long the second age went).

I don't feel like I know enough about dragons OR Paravians to speculate on why the former taught the latter nothing or exactly what their relationship to one another was.

Paravian Factoid for the fun of it, the Second Age lasted 13,051 Paravian years.

Good lord! :D

"Paravian years"? Now you're just messing with us! :)

Janny wrote: The dragons taught the Paravians nothing. Care to speculate the reason behind this?

Well, what the heck, I'll go ahead and speculate wildly. :)

Here's what I remember. We had the dragons and we had the Paravians, and then we had the drake-spawn, which threatened the survival of the Paravians. In other words, these creatures related to dragons were the problem. The dragons drew the F7 to Athera to "secure the mysteries that enable Paravian survival," and part of that charge seems to have been dealing with the drake-spawn. Is it, then, that there's something tainted or tainting about the dragons? While the dragons themselves seem to have been good in some sense, the drake spawn seem to be wholly destructive and of course dead dragons are so dangerous that the Paravians had to create Grimwards to prevent the dreams of dead dragons from destroying more or less everything.

So if there's some inherent taint to dragons, that might explain why they taught the Paravians nothing--they wanted to protect the pure Paravians from that taint.

So there's my theory.

Sounds reasonable to me, John. But I really have no idea and have decided the dragons are definitely a mixed blessing -- mostly negative, maybe a bit of positive in that they recognized a need for help to harness the harm they were causing. Scary critters indeed.

Janny wrote: "Paravian Factoid for the fun of it, the Second Age lasted 13,051 Paravian years."

So maybe they aren't taking applications to join the F7 because no one else is old enough? LOL

Exactly. Verrain might be ready to join in another 20,000 years or so...

if he destroys a world or two and subsequently finds redemption.

Then, he might be ready to start filling out the application.

John wrote: "Exactly. Verrain might be ready to join in another 20,000 years or so...

if he destroys a world or two and subsequently finds redemption.

Then, he might be ready to start filling out the app..."

You're crackin' me up, John!

Did I mention that the application will be through a temp agency, and he won't get any benefits or a salary commensurate with his skills?

::chuckle::

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I wonder if it has something to do with the number 7, which bears all kinds of magical qualities.

This is from a Google search:

• 7 has a broad selection depending the matter being discussed •

E..."

Interesting stuff, Sandra - if anything seems to 'fit' here - hang onto it.

The 'real' reason why there were 7 Sorcerers is much sillier/less lofty - grin. (to John, I don't ALWAYS mess with your head - :) )

When I set out to 'design' the very early stages of this tale (which eventually ran away with that idea, and designed itself - forget what I wanted - the Muse had better ideas) - I had read a LOT of fantasy and I was VERY tired of the Oh-So-Powerful old man Wizard who was a) the very ARCHTYPE of Gandalf, and b) "powerful" - but - somehow never DID anything. For reasons that were 'wise' and 'obscure' and never ever understandable, except if they did act, Story's End, period.

Sooo...first, I decided IF I made '7' of these guys, they would HAVE TO HAVE CHARACTERS and that would force/push the invention of their personalities as distinct and separate and NOT GANDALF. grin. Nothing wrong with the archtype, but Tolkein did it best.

Next -- these guys would be truly scarily powerful. And when they acted - best tremble. Since Story Ended sort of omnipotence would have played havoc with a plot - the stays and constraints had to make sense, and have MEANING to the context.

And - just for the heck of it -- (then) -- says me, not really understanding a THING - let's have two of them be DISCORPORATE and one wounded.

SO little did I know.

It should be noted, here, that this 'level' of what if planning also went into the box, second, after the seed idea: 'let's have two half brothers, one dark, one fair, shift the stereotype on its head...and pit them, Shadows vs Light, in a blood feud....'

Realize: I was, then, 18.

Very quickly, after that, nothing became arbitrary. And a year down the line, after all the mix n' match period research on war/weapons, age of sail, everything else technical - the documentary on Culloden Field which changed and altered and impacted the entire course - for depth of detail on that, see discussion on Book I.

John wrote: "Did I mention that the application will be through a temp agency, and he won't get any benefits or a salary commensurate with his skills?"

Wowza - I hope not!

By this, we also skip free of Politics, Unions, Corporate Lobbying, Tea Party, Health Care, a whole whomping mess of taxes and white collar money laundering...whew (author yanks fingers from hot keyboard, ducks quick and RUNS!!!)

Janny wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I wonder if it has something to do with the number 7, which bears all kinds of magical qualities.

This is from a Google search:

• 7 has a broad selection depending the mat..."

Well, interesting that you went from '1' to '7'! Perhaps the archetypal power of the # itself?

Although I didn't know all that, I did have a sense as we saw things unfold what good sense (from an author's craft standpoint) it made that these beings of great power were doubly constrained: first, they were constrained by the Law of the Major Balance from interfering and second, they have really important things to do other than using their vast power to resolve plot points for the main characters.

Also, I like that line of thinking: "if there are seven of them, I have to distinguish their characters, so they can't all be Gandalf." :)

And I'm with Sandra on this: even if you weren't conscious of it, 7 is just one of those culturally significant numbers. Seven and three, those are the big ones, especially on the "good" side of things.

And I agree that seven of them is much more interesting than one. And I like the constraints, keeping in mind that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Janny wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I wonder if it has something to do with the number 7, which bears all kinds of magical qualities.

This is from a Google search:

• 7 has a broad selection dep..."

If a story is a mythic exploration of our beliefs, then, nothing would be arbitrary, you are right. There would be a reason behind any choice, and no choice would be random.

I admit the musician in me was at work, too:

Fellowship of Four; Fellowship of Five, or Eight, or Nine just didn't ring....Seven, however SOUNDED cool.

Odd fact: did you know, that, digging into very VERY early language, the first colors ever 'named' are: red, black, and white....and that, symbolically, also, those colors 'trigger' access to the unconscious mind....

Yellow came next, followed by blue.

The sum of our human context - an amazing well, isn't it?

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "And I agree that seven of them is much more interesting than one. And I like the constraints, keeping in mind that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Do you think that old saw is absolute truth? Or is there a parallel set of beliefs that might run: absolute power WITHOUT WISDOM AND LOVE corrupts absolutely?

The kicker question of course: what is wisdom, and what is love?

Janny wrote: "Do you think that old saw is absolute truth? Or is there a parallel set of beliefs that might run: absolute power WITHOUT WISDOM AND LOVE corrupts absolutely?

The kicker question of course: what is wisdom, and what is love? "

Oh, I love this question. For if the axiom is absolute, then God by definition would be corrupt. So, yes, without wisdom and love, corruption results.

And yet, who or what defines wisdom and love? If we do, as flawed, broken, mistaken repeat offenders, then can we ever climb out of the mess we make? Can we aspire to something better? Can we even recognize it (true love or wisdom)?

Or, I could go one forever, but never find an answer. It's a journey, a life's work.

Sorry to jump in but that post caught my eye. And I haven't read Peril's Gate yet so I'm even farther off base than normal. :)

I would agree that the truism isn't true. Many times, rulers have shown themselves, despite a great deal of power, not to have been corrupted by it. Take George Washington, just for starters.

Maybe that would be an interesting historical study, to look at leaders who most would agree were not corrupted by their power and see why that was.

I'm also reminded of an essay I read about what the elite boarding schools used to be: spartan conditions to give the scions of the wealthy "salutary deprivation" to improve these people to whom fortune have given everything and to instill in them a sense of noblesse oblige. And I suppose this was, in essence, a reaction to the danger to which the old saw points.

So perhaps the point is that, in the absence of moderating beliefs or qualities, power--absolute or otherwise--tends to corrupt. And among those moderating traits are wisdom and love.

Fascinating discussion, folks! Maybe the old saw should be modified to 'absolute power TENDS to corrupt absolutely'. How's that? I was thinking about the F7 when I made my comment and about all the reservations I had about them in the beginning of the series, mostly because of all their power; but partly, I admit, because they are all men. I asked myself about their motives, and wondered where the moderating feminine power was.

I'm always suspicious of 'all good' and 'all bad', am always looking for the shadow side of things.

In this story, perhaps Davien's motives in stirring the uprising will answer some of these questions as the story progresses and our questions are resolved.

Jon, I agree that power has to be mitigated by love and wisdom.

John, George Washington did not have ABSOLUTE power, but that would be an interesting study. I suspect you'd find the answer to be they were people with innate integrity and honor and also had a good dose of Jon's wisdom and love.

Wow, I missed a whole lot over the weekend. I love this group, you are so fun to discuss things. It's great seeing your ideas, humor and insights.

So, Sandra, you say that George Washington didn't have absolute power. Do you have any examples of someone who did? Would it have to be someone with absolute power over a certain nation or empire, such as one of the Roman Emperors, or would they have to have absolute power over everything?

This would definitely make a very interesting study.

Well in the case of George Washington, it would depend on when you were talking about, I guess. First he was a general and I guess generals have absolute power over their troops. But when he was elected president, he was under the constitution, which has the balance of powers built in just to prevent the kind of absolute power held by a dictator.

No one really has absolute power in the human world, I guess, as the most heinous rulers can be overthrown. But I think in terms of The Death of Sardanapalus, a painting by Delacroix of the slaughter of Sardanapalus' wives at his death and that is the kind of power that gives me the shudders.



This particular ruler is from a tale, based on the last ruler of Assyria.

Sure, technically no mere mortal can gave absolute power. Kings or emperors, perhaps, but even they are mortal, and only have power within their domain. A prophet or religious leader may be understood to have absolute power over one's soul, which may be generally supposed to be more important than power merely over one's body.

And by that standard, George Washington did not have absolute power, but it's worth remembering that America was still establishing a lot of what America would be in practice. The constitution only had as much power as people gave it. Washington was popular enough that he probably could have held the presidency for life if he'd chosen to, but he stepped down. He could, in fact, have set all sorts of precedents that, fortunately for us, he didn't (I suppose the flip side is that he could have done some things better!).

In any case, I think the old saw has its power because so many of our social organizations (government, church, work, etc) involve power relationships. I suspect that as long as people have been in such relationships, they've been anxious about the people above them in the hierarchy (and this is often a justified fear!).

Jon wrote: "Janny wrote: "Do you think that old saw is absolute truth? Or is there a parallel set of beliefs that might run: absolute power WITHOUT WISDOM AND LOVE corrupts absolutely?

The kicker question of ..."

Good -- grin. You have something to look forward to, when you get here in the series - and even, as the series goes beyond this title, to see where your points might lead.

John wrote: "I would agree that the truism isn't true. Many times, rulers have shown themselves, despite a great deal of power, not to have been corrupted by it. Take George Washington, just for starters.

M..."

That's a good point and an interesting bit of history I'd never encountered, before...thanks for bringing that up.

There is another view - those who may have such 'absolute' power - might not choose (for wise reasons) to exert it, or might be extremely selective how they participate. Might a powerful person not lead in another way?

I was once told, by an elder, that the person with the most power was always the one sitting alone, outside the ring of the council fire - the one who did not approach, and who said nothing at all.

Amelia wrote: "Wow, I missed a whole lot over the weekend. I love this group, you are so fun to discuss things. It's great seeing your ideas, humor and insights.

So, Sandra, you say that George Washington di..."

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Fascinating discussion, folks! Maybe the old saw should be modified to 'absolute power TENDS to corrupt absolutely'. How's that? I was thinking about the F7 when I made my comment and about all ..."

Perhaps if history was told from a different focus, we'd see a different contour of events?

And, Sandra - you'll get to see. :)

John wrote: "Sure, technically no mere mortal can gave absolute power. Kings or emperors, perhaps, but even they are mortal, and only have power within their domain. A prophet or religious leader may be underst..."

I think it is a belief set, subscribed to by society, that the 'power' lies with the perpetrator. That take is scary and worse, one sided - it says the victim(s) are Always Powerless - that they never have the choice to rebel, walk away, or stop participating. It says for things to get better, the bully has to stop FIRST.

Not, that the bully would have no one to crush under their heel, if the 'victims' all left the party.

Further, that insidious take says someone ELSE with the power has to rescue the 'victim' - not that the victim can reclaim what was theirs to begin with.

'Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely' enforces this closed loop - and does nothing to redistribute 'authority' - why is this such an insidiously POPULAR concept?

-Always wondered; and story is a great place to explore this concept - yet fiction so seldom does.

Do you think that reinforces the concept - that all of us need to be 'rescued?' And if so, if we were taught it was excrable to 'allow' ourselves to be degraded - if we learned THAT as thoroughly - would we be more open to seeking our own 'salvation' from whatever was grinding us down?

WHY, today, do we so 'ennoble' the victim?
And why do we so extol the one who 'saves' them, but ignore the hero/heroine gutsy enough to take back their dignity - who stands up and saves themself?

Note: this does not apply to a powerless child, abused, but adults who allow it by belief they are 'victims' unto their own destruction...

And -- about this arc - get ready. For that concept to be torn down and examined. ;)

Great questions and obvervations, Janny.

WHY, today, do we so 'ennoble' the victim?
And why do we so extol the one who 'saves' them...

First, I'll take it for granted--but point out--that the "we" there is "we in the first world" or even "we Americans." I think that we Americans have a separate tendency to ignore the downtrodden, whether they are overseas or in our cities or rural areas (or wherever they are). Perhaps it's because of this that when our reporters or activists call our attention to these people, they are ennobled because those calling our attention want us--as a wealthy nation, as the nation with the most powerful military--to step in and be the heroes. Because we have so much, it's expected that we also have a responsibility to Make Things Better. At the same time, this narrative feeds into our own view of ourselves as the greatest nation on earth (and, for that matter, the greatest nation that's ever been on the earth). And perhaps that also answers the second part of your question, why we ignore the ones who stand up for themselves: it's not as important as if we did it, and anyway, as pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps Americans, that's just what one should do--nothing to applaud there.

And yes, I recognize the contradictions here, but I think they are cultural paradoxes, not mistakes of analysis--though I'm quite willing to admit that I could be mistaken!

As for your earlier questions, I think it's hard to speak in generalities. If the alternative horns of the dilemma are suffer under the thumb of power or "nobly" die in resistence, it's easy enough to see why people suffer rather than taking up arms against their sea of troubles. Slavery may well seem a better option than "give me liberty or give me death" when the latter seems far more likely. And it's not always possible to opt out, to choose neither path.

Along those lines, I've long been impressed by the power of civil disobedience, of non-violent resistence, but I don't think it's all that viable before mass communication. Non-violent protest relies on the shame of those in power, which is usually only engaged when enough people know about what's going on. I'm reminded of a memorial I saw in Prague for a Catholic monk who was killed, in essence, for being Martin Luther before the printing press (which, of course, has often not been enough--television is far better in this regard). Non-violence is about claiming the moral high ground, but if those in power can write the official narrative for the masses, the moral high ground may not have much effect in this world if no one knows (presuming there is one, its effects in the afterlife are said to be considerably more salutary).

Janny wrote: "John wrote: "Sure, technically no mere mortal can gave absolute power. Kings or emperors, perhaps, but even they are mortal, and only have power within their domain. A prophet or religious leader m..."

I think you have a point here. The 'victim' is told that what happens to them isn't thier fault. In a certain sense it becomes a lack of taking responisibilty for your own actions. It is a matter of enabling. I think that also has to do with power. One is as powerful as others make them. If we allow someone to dictate our life, we're giving them power. On the other hand, if we protest in whatever form, their power isn't absolute.

I lived in East Germany about 10 years after it had been reunited with the west. It was really interesting to see how some people reacted to this change. Some thought this new life was hard because there were now too many choices. In their communist society, the government dictated most and in some cases all decisions that they came across. Once they had to make their own decisions, they didn't handle it very well. This was especially apparent with the older people. They were used to how the world had been and found it hard to change. For the younger generation, they absorbed the changes much easier.

In America, I think we also become accustomed to our life and then just want it to remain the same, or better easier. In some ways a life of luxury and ease, doesn't push us to look outside of the easiness of it to encourage improvement and change. Of course not everyone here lives that life, but those that do, sometimes forget about them. Sometimes we try to help them in the wrong ways. We do too much for them, so they don't learn how to take care of theirself. It reminds me of chicks hatching from an egg, if we were to take the shell off for them, the chick would die because it wouldn't gain the strength that came from breaking out of the egg.

I don't know if I'm making much sense here, but I do believe that we should not take the stance of being 'a victim', rather we should do what we can to help ourself, if possible.

This is an interesting dialogue, here, John and Amelia have both raised interesting points.

For John: liberty or death - I would argue that the 'thinking' dignity that assigns such power to the individual would cause civil refusal FAR SOONER than conditions that led to war, or slavery.

Amelia - I liked your concept of enabling in life. Our mythos/stories do the ennobling.

I do see (around me, daily) quite a lot of anemic belief - people think they don't have the power to change anything - when, often, their spending dollar can say quite a lot. Few will alter their habit of where they direct that spending FORCE - rather than spend more for better conditions, or, spend elsewhere, they do as usual and whine about the 'abuse' to them as a result.

Though I agree, John, you have raised a sharp point - that mass communication makes it MUCH easier to see two sides, or to become informed.

And yet, people still have to make the effort to see two sides (or more, things are never that polarized) with open eyes.

And this does, indeed, tie straight back into the concepts of War of Light and Shadow...Lysaer: there but for the grace of BEING informed, the reader would follow. And in the acquisition of power, there are many levels of responsibility.

We are not taught to ask/not encouraged to question authority when young. What begins, perhaps, for convenience of the adults, ends with most of us becoming the flock for the few to rake off the benefits. Because we are not encouraged to think.

The pack learns to defend itself from thinkers - don't leave the comfort zone, please!

And if you are to change things, do it by MARTYRDOM - die for that cause....don't dare do it by trying to win AND survive? (This is placed in extreme terms, yes, to provoke discussion).... it is certainly safer for the status quo to promote the idea that you can't change anything EXCEPT through the cycle of violent destruction/death.

I still say, there is another (many other) alternatives.

And lots of food for discussion here.

I agree with you Janny. It is much harder to live for a cause than to die for it. Yet there is a lot of glory and honor (perhaps just by association) in becoming that Martyr, the hero who died. Those who live by their belief in a cause don't attract nearly the same amount of attention that will come to a martyr. But again, that's also not an absolute truth. I can think of several cases where someone was just doing their job, didn't die, and have become heroes.

Take the whole Chilean Mine Rescue a few weeks ago. That was a huge story. What really surprised me was how fast the media has turned it into something more. Just the other day I saw an advertisement about a new documentary about this event. It's been two weeks and there's alreay a show about it. Amazing how fast that came about.

Then there's the Hudson River landing and rescue. The pilot, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, was just doing his job, but he became a hero by saving those who were on that plane. A few weeks after this rescue there was another crash into the Hudson River. This time all of the passangers and pilot were killed. It's interesting which crash we hear about more.

Those are two major examples. Usually the little things that we do in our life aren't broadcast by the media.

I do believe that stories like the Wars of Light and Shadow are some of the little things that can really make a difference. Just thinking of all of the questions and ideas this series has created in the various groups here on Goodreads, tells me this has lasting power and impact. In order for this to do anything, though, someone must choose to read it. Then they have to think about it. Then they have to act on the ideas in some way for it to do anything. Action is a huge factor in change. We can think, discuss or talk about an idea all we want, but until we do something, there will be no change. Even if that something is small, that's where we can start to make a difference.

Unfortunately many people act without thinking. This kind of action tends to be a pack or even in some cases a 'mob' action. Thoughtless action leads to violence many times since it seems like that is the answer. If there had been thought involved and a little more time, usually one can come up with a solution that doesn't involve violence.