e: What/Who is the Creator
by Sidhe: 2003-11-10 | Not yet rated
One of the general themes in WoT is balance: balance between male and female, balance between saidar and saidin, the balance between Light and Dark and the balance between good and bad. Keeping this point of view: The Creator is good and the DO is bad, quite simple.
So why is the DO able to physically (or psychologically, tho there are hints of his Hand in various parts of the books) touch the world, whereas we see nothing of the Creator?
Two things:
1) There is no real religion in Randland, no one calls on a god or on the Creator, except for the "Light" part, tho it seems no one really knows why it's said. On the other hand, there are several names for the Dark One, his real name shouldn't be mentioned for he might pay attention. In other words: people gave personality to the DO, but they did not do so for the Creator. Not being personalized, he is not _directly_ involved with the world. He has, however, chosen a hero to fight for him (Rand) and several others to help the hero. At least, that's what i presume.
2) In other fantasy series, a similar view/theme is visible: there is a good side and a bad side. For example, in the Terry Goodkind's series, there is a Creator and a Keeper. The Creator doesn't have a direct role except through the goodies, but the Keeper does.
Same with Tolkien's story: The dark force has a (physical) place in the world, while the good force doesn't (and is, for as far as i know, not even mentioned). However, there are heros fighting the good cause.
Apparently it's a "common" view that the good force is somewhere out of reach, but chooses a human hero to fight for him, and the bad force is able to touch the world itself.
I don't really know what this means and i know there are holes in what i've written, but it feels right that the Creator is an untouchable being, while the DO has a direct personality. (has a bit of a biblical thiny perhaps)
Another thing: the balance.
How can one side be victorious over the other if that means, whichever side wins, that the balance is destroyed? Light can't exist without dark, good can't exist without bad, and vice versa of course. So what would happen to the world?
You cannot rate theories without first logging in. Please
log in.
1
Tamyrlin: 2003-11-15
I hadn't thought about how many fantasy series, popular ones, use this relationship. I would suggest some possibilities have to do with the obvious "boring" factor. If the Creator jumps in, who is supposed to be all-powerful, the one who locked up the bad guy in the first place, then what fun would it be to write about it? :) But, more importantly, I think the writers are stressing the idea that possibility for good and evil resides in all of us. The Evil takes satisfaction in destroying humanity, so humanity must react to save itself. Man vs. Man, Man vs. Himself, Man vs. God. The God vs. God theme is anti-human, it is otherly, it is something we are unable to grasp or find much interest in, unless they pull the God-fallible-man theme, which has been done (Weis and Hickman).
2
a dragonburned fool: 2003-11-15
quote: "How can one side be victorious over the other if that means, whichever side wins, that the balance is destroyed?"
Yes, RJ himself said, DO is the necessary counterpart to the Creator. But there are also different levels of balance. Creator vs DO is one plane, the world as Creators work is another plane and it has it's own balance, balance in wich the DO is to be imprisoned somewhere not in the world, i.e. an balance in wich DO must be not there. When DO takes part in the world, he's desturbing the balance. And his goal is not simply to disturb, but (after the destroying the Wheel, whatever that means) to rebuild the world on his image. In other words, DO wants to establish his own balance in the world, a balance different from the Creator's one. It's a struggle, who's balance it will be the natural, fight between two balances. So it's necessary one and only one of the sides to be victorous. And if (hypotheticaly) the DO wins, they would change places, DO would not take part in the world (it would be his balance there) and the Creator would touch it (it is the case in realworld religious conceptions like in the gnosticism, manicheism).
3
Callandor: 2003-11-15
**1) There is no real religion in Randland, no one calls on a god or on the Creator, except for the "Light" part, tho it seems no one really knows why it's said.**
**TITLE: Eye of the World, CHAPTER: Prologue - Dragonmount
"And it came to pass in those days, as it had come before and would come again, that the Dark lay heavy on the land and weighed down the hearts of men, and the green things failed, and hope died. And men cried out to the Creator, saying, O Light of the Heavens, Light of the World, let the Promised One be born of the mountain, according to the prophecies, as he was in ages past and will be in ages to come. Let the Prince of the Morning sing to the land that green things will grow and the valleys give forth lambs. Let the arm of the Lord of the Dawn shelter us from the Dark, and the great sword of justice defend us. Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time.**
**TITLE: Great Hunt, CHAPTER: Prologue - In the Shadow
"The Great Lord of the Dark is my Master, and most heartily do I serve him to the last shred of my very soul." In the back of his mind a voice chattered with fear. The Dark One and all the Forsaken are bound . . . . Shivering, he forced it to silence. He had abandoned that voice long since. "Lo, my Master is death's Master. Asking nothing do I serve against the Day of his coming, yet do I serve in the sure and certain hope of life everlasting." . . . bound in Shayol Ghul, bound by the Creator at the moment of creation. No, I serve a different master now. "Surely the faithful shall be exalted in the land, exalted above the unbelievers; exalted above thrones, yet do I serve humbly against the Day of his Return." The hand of the Creator shelters us all, and the Light protects us from the Shadow. No, no! A different master. "Swift come the Day of Return. Swift come the Great Lord of the Dark to guide us and rule the world forever and ever."**
**TITLE: Great Hunt, CHAPTER: 4 - Summoned
Anaiya explained that just now they must attend the Amyrlin Seat. "Of course," Amalisa said. "The Light illumine her, and the Creator shelter her. But later, then." She stood straight and bowed her head as they left her.**
**TITLE: Great Hunt, CHAPTER: 15 - Kinslayer
"The Light shine on us," Hurin murmured nervously, "and the Creator's hand shelter us. Though we go to the last embrace of the mother, the Light illumine our way." He kept repeating the catechism as if it had a charm to protect him.**
They do call out to the Creator; this is just a FEW of the references from the first TWO books.
4
Zaela Sedai: 2003-11-15
Nice job qoutemaster.:) I actually agree with you here.
It's not that there is no religion, it that there is only one religion, if you can even call it that. There are no churches or temples or whatever, but everyone (that we know of) believes in the Creator and the DO to some extent or another. They just choose what side they're on. That's too simply put, but you know what I mean.
It the same in many fantasy series. ie Donaldson's Thomas Covenant (rip off of LOTR), LOTR, Star Wars, etc. Good vs Evil = Great Stories!
5
Sensir: 2003-11-15
as someone said the weis and hickman idea of gods having a less powerful mortal form would make sense. At some point rand al'thor is saved by someone in shadar logoth? but also on the fact of weis and hickman there are 3 types of gods the evil ones:takhisis sargonnas etc. and the good ones:paladine mishkal etc. and hten neutral. if this is true for fantasy is there a neutral force other then mortals in RJ's world??? and if so why has he kept it so low and not let it shine through? I think that in the next few books the dark one and the creators "chosen" warriors will fight. this beign the dark ones chosen verse the main char. such as egwene elayne rand and others. But will this only occur through those who can wield the on power or will mat and perrin have to do this also?
6
Elder Haman: 2003-11-15
This is the great philisophical argument:
1: God is Omnipotent (All Powerful)
2: God is Omni-benevelent (All loving/ All Good)
3: Evil/Suffering is Real
How can all three statements be correct? This is the great debate of theologists. Some- Like Christian Scientists- argue that evil and suffering are illusionary. Many adopt some sort of restrictions on God's power- ie Evil is a real threat-eg Zorastorism, or RJ's world- God can't touch the world, sort of a Deist viewpoint, though traditional Deism regects point 2, ie God has more important things to worry about than the foolishness of humans.
Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions argue that all three points are correct- which has lead to a lot of arguments- but mostly comes down to the same thing: (Forgive me if I get these wrong- I'm not a Prof. of Religion, these are just what my friends of varing faiths tell me)
Judism argues that God (because He's All loving) wants men to obey him by choice- therefore God doesn't force man to choose good. When Man chooses evil (sins) he creates suffering (Because God is Just), and therefore all evil/suffering is created by men's sins- This creates the problem of why innocents suffer- see the Book of Job (in the Bible) for an extensive discussion of this issue.
Islam: From what I understand- Islam attacks the problem from point 3- arguing that God knows what He is doing and we should submit to His will and trust Him, because His will creates the best world possible- and that it is disobedience that leads to suffering-- again comming to much the same conclusion as the Book of Job and Judism.
Christianity is all over the map on this issue, but most seem to start from the same viewpoints as Judism and Islam- only with more emphasis on Free Will, (though Lutherans [the pastors anyways] and other predestinationists completely reject this, they argue that we don't have free will- so I don't really understand how they reconcile these issues- though I think it's by emphasising Christ's Atonement), but most Christians (Catholics/Baptists/Methodists/Pentacostals) argue from the view that God (being "all good" ie loving, just ect.) will not take away mans free will, and allows man to choose evil (disobey God/sin). Thus Suffering is a result of Man's fall (disobeying God and eating of the Fruit of the tree of knowledge). Now, here's where Christians differ from Jews and Muslims: Christians say that God still loves man (perfect mercy) and so sent His Son the Christ to Atone for Man's sin, including the Fall, and that this Redemption overcomes and destroys Evil (thus Evil is real but temporary). I hope I've got this right- please remeber that different Christian faiths would probably present this argument differently.
I'm a Latter Day Saint- so below is what my church teaches, and may have colored my perception of these other sects:
God is both pefectly just, and perfectly merciful. This creates a conflict- God being just, gave man free will, and through man's choice, Sin and Death entered the world (the Fall), the reason God allowed this is that man needed to expierence Evil to understand Good. However man could not return to God in this fallen state. He needed an Atonement- so God sent His Son Christ to make this atonement so that men might CHOOSE to become clean (from evil)- but only if they choose to. Thus God has the power to force man- but He doesn't because that would be evil. However, God found a way to provide all men with the ability to be released from the bondage of Evil- if they choose to. Thus Man's method of down fall (choosing sin) becomes his method of salvation- choosing Christ.
Now here's want is unique about LDS theology compared to other faiths (at least as far as I've been able to find) is the recognition that free will allows Sin, and that Sin causes suffering not only for the sinner, but also for the person sinned against, and therefore Christ's atonement and Christ's suffering included all the pains of all people- not just the damnation of sinners- so that Christ can heal all people and all pains, "that He might know how to succor his people." The above is of course a very condenced account of LDS theology.
Now what was the point to all of this... Oh yeah, fantasy and why the similar religious motifs in so many of them- well I do have alot to say on that but it required a review of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology first- now this reply is so long I think I'm going to put the anaylis of Tolkien and RJ in a second reply.
-Elder Haman (hope that's okay Tamyrlin)
Okay, so where was I?
Oh yeah- Ever since Tolkien fantasy has emphasized and amplified this concept of Free Will.
Thus in LOTR the good guys are all motivated by things having to do with choice and persuasion: friendship, sacrifice, duty, love, ect. Even Aragon's "fate" is depicted as a matter of choice. Ultimately, these motives can be boiled bown to faith (Gandolf/Elrond), hope (Aragon/Arwen), and charity (Sam/Frodo). I give them as pairs because each ideal is presented as one of the members of the pair wavering and the other person supporting- thus Gandalf encourages Elrond to have faith in Aragon, Frodo, and Gondor; Arwen inspires Aragon to hope for succes; and Sam comforts Frodo with perfect love.
Evil in Tolkien's world is depicted as having motivations from force- always force- things like terror, hate, lust, revenge, envy, death, and pain. Evil can be boiled down to Fear, Despair, and Greed/Pride, and Tolkien gives us examples of each in heros who succum to them: Boromir (Fear), Denethor (Despair), Sauruman (Greed/Pride).
Ultimatly, Evil is defeated not through force of arms, but by faith, hope, and love overcoming fear, despair, and pride. Thus Choice overcomes Force. Very Catholic- and in Tolkien God is not unmindful- he simply does not act because doing so would destroy the world of men (you have to read the Simirilian to understand that part).
The same elements exist in RJ's world:
The Creator does not force anyone- even his champion (Rand the Dragon) to do anything- he only gives guidance (via prophecies/dreams), meanwhile the Dark One is all about Force. The basic elements are there as well- only in different forms:
Darkfriends/Black Ajah = Greed/Pride
Trollocs & Fades = Fear
Mordeth = Despair
Rand = Charity (All he thinks about are other's needs)
Perin = Faith
Mat = Hope
Rand's current weakness is a lack of Hope- but the danger is that this lack of Hope may eventually lead to a loss of charity (ie winter's heart/ not weeping/ hard as stone ect.)
Perrin is currently in danger of losing his faith because it's all bound up with his love for Faile.
Some might argue that Perrin = Hope and Mat = Faith is better because MAt is the one who doesn't want to admit that he is part of this prophesy- though this would mean that Mat is actually improving while the others are all messed up.
Anyways- Fantasy constantly addresses these issues because it's a universal human concern- how do I maintian faith, hope, or love in the face of all the evil and pain in the world?
I can't seem to remember the point I was planning to get to- but maybe it's better this way. I don't want to do all your thinking for you ;)
7
The Leveler: 2003-11-15
How do we know about the Creator if he hasn't touched the world? And you have your Tolkien wrong. The Powers of LIght intervened directly on at least 2 occasions: The War of Wrath, and the Alkalabeth.
8
Zaela Sedai: 2003-11-16
It seems that as long as there is good in the world that the Creator is touching it. Not to mention the OP comes from the creator, therefore he is always touching the world in a way. However as of right now the Creator doesn't need to take an active role because "good" is in control as of right now. If the DO won, we may see the Creator touching the world as the DO is doing presently.
9
wolfbrother369: 2003-11-16
What if the Wheel is the creator and he is bound in a way too to only act through the wheel. The wheel seems to be intelligent(wheeving a complex pattern). It serves the light.
It could also explain why it would be important for the DO to destroy the wheel if he escapes. So the wheel/creator can't weave him back into a prison through the pattern.
10
Callandor: 2003-11-16
**What if the Wheel is the creator and he is bound in a way too to only act through the wheel.**
No, the BWB specifically states: there are 2 things outside of the Pattern: Te Creator and the DO. The Creator cannot be outside of the Pattern and bound by it at the same time; hence, he is not bound and outside the Pattern.
11
: 2003-11-17
oo boy more theological discusions hehe
Eldar Haman that was a very insightful reply even if you are not sure what the point is i think if you read the whole thing you will get the point as for religious similarities i think that the WOT comes closest to christianity because you have the 3 basics of christianity
1. Creator = God
does not take a active role but allows us free will
2. The Dragon = Christ
the savior sent to earth to give us salvation
3. Dark One = Lucifer
of course as far as history goes we dont know alot about the DO other then he was imprisoned at the time of Creation where as Lucifer is a fallen angle but their actions in the world are atleast for a certain point of view similar.
I was raised Southern Baptist (real southern baptist not baptist in the south there is a major diffrence) i have also Attended Asymbaly of God churches as well (imagine my amazment the first time i went there) and i have more recently started going to a Lutheran church plus studied many diffrent forms of religion and philosophy in my search for my own belifes. Basically what you said in my limited knowledge seems to be somewhat true here are a couple quotes from a site i found about the basic lutheran belifes
that Gods Law tells us how he wants us to live but we all fall short of being able to obey Gods laws
Lutherans belive the salvation is a totall free gift of God and that all our good works and human efforts do not merit or earn Gods favor or forgivness
we are saved by grace through faith in Christ
Here is a interesting thought Rand belives he is the Dragon because he is told he is people have faith in him if they did not have faith in him he would have no faith in himself thefore he would most likly not save the world (interesting paralell i think)(this could also be applied to the Matrix Neo ideals except the Matrix has a more direct coralation then WoT)
basically this shows a limitation to free will not a lack of we can do all the good stuff we want but it is meaningless but if we belive in Christ then shall we be saved (hence we have the choice to belive but truly God loves us no matter what which means we are loved without doing anything) not sure where i was going with that but you a partially correct but there are still choices to be made i think the parallel i pointed out is quite interesting anyway sorry about the Blurg but thought you broght up some interesting thoughts and info
wolf brother you also bring up an interesting thought i have wondered the same thing if not to the same degree it certainly makes a interesting theory you should expand on it
12
wolfbrother369: 2003-11-17
I don't mean to imply that he is bound by the pattern. I only mean to suggest that he can only or chooses to only act through the weaving of the pattern. He would still be outside the pattern even if could only act through it.
Also, could you give me a more specific reference about that.
Thanks
13
Sidhe: 2003-11-17
By an error on my part (i.e. forgetting to hit the reply button at two in the morning) my theory has been posted as if it was a tread on itself. In fact, it was supposed to be a reply on an existing theory, which can be found in Theories - Read Theories - Miscellaneous - What/Who is the Creator. Because of my own stupidity, it was not placed there, and will not be moved over, for as far as I know.
Reading the theory and the replies in the original tread might shed a completely different light on my theory. Or it might not at that. Anyway, I invite you all to read the original tread and to 'see' my post as a reply.
My apologies for the confusion
14
ranman38: 2003-11-17
My two cents. Balance is maintained when neither "being" The Light and the Dark One, take a direct hand in events of the world. There is always good and evil. The reason Randland gets all bumfuzzled is that The DO uses men and forsaken(demons?) to act directly on his behalf. This upsets the balance. The DO struggles to break free from his prison, and the world grows more perilous the closer he gets. When the last battle is over, and the DO is surely vanquished and placed in another prison, things will be good for awhile. The Wheel Turns.
15
Cor Shan: 2003-11-17
there are no Randland Churches because there is no need: According to RJ, Temples, churches, ect. are there to reaffirm our faith, so why have them when there are clear signs of the faith/religion all over the place: ta'veren, OP, whatever.
16
Korell: 2003-11-19
First off the big no name speil belongs to Korell (just incase this one does not display) second off i think your right there are no churches in Randland because there is truly no need have we seen anyone question the existance of the Creator or the DO they just belive period they have unwavering faith and thefore do not need a church or temple they belive blindly it is the ultimate in faith even the DF and Forsaken know that their is a creator they simply choose to follow the DO instead. you made a great point there Cor Shan
17
Caramoor: 2003-11-20
Another reason for no churches is there is no clear way to follow the light. There are no rules to be taught or reinforced, they believe that all people naturally know the difference between right and wrong.
18
moleman: 2004-02-17
Sidhe writes:
...touch the world, whereas we see nothing of the Creator?
EOTW, Chapter 51, "Against the Shadow" (p. 758, Tor mass-market ed.)
"The wind died. The screams died. The earth was still. Dust amd smoke swirled back down the pass to surround him.
"The Light blind you, Ba'alzamon! This has to end!"
IT IS NOT HERE.
It was not Rand's thought, making his skull vibrate.
I WILL TAKE NO PART. ONLY THE CHOSEN ONE CAN DO WHAT MUST BE DONE, IF HE WILL.
"Where?" He did not want to say it, but he could not stop himself. "Where?"
The haze surrounding him parted, leaving a dome of clear, clean air ten spans high, walled by billowing smoke and dust. Steps rose before him, each stanking alone and unsupported, stretching up into the murk that obscured the sun.
NOT HERE.
Throught the mist, as from the far end of the earth, came a cry. "The Light wills it!" The ground rumbled with the thunder of hooves as the forces of humankind launched their last charge."
Given that the only "character" we ever see use ALL CAPS as his voice is the DO, I've always assumed that this voice was the Creator. The ALL CAPS shows a tremendous power, and I never got the feeling that this was the DO talking to Rand (it seems much more like Paladine/Fizban's m.o. than Takhisis's, to use the Weis/Hickman example). Granted, He didn't vanquish Ba'alzamon directly, and even says "I WILL TAKE NO PART", but He is clearly directly guiding Rand, setting him on the path, and letting Rand make the decision whether or not to walk it. Again, very 'Fizbanish'. So I do think that the Creator has been 'seen' in the sense that we have a clear confirmation of His existance and at least a small interference in the course of events.
Just my $0.02.
19
charliec: 2004-02-18
Okay, here's my tuppence (sorry, I'm english)...
I think the perception of the Dark one/Satan as the only active party is pretty common to most literature, either because of the story telling reasons given, or because people in general just don't know how to work an active, good, god into a story...
as a christian I'd say that's 'cos most people just don't know that much about God. If you want a counter example of story telling where God is active, have a look at C. S. Lewis' Cosmic trilogy...
It's difficult to deal with God in a story, and where Robert Jordan is really unusual (I think) is in actually putting him in a bit, in the sections people have mentioned already- speaking to Rand, and then saving him while he battled Samael. As a rule in literature (and reality) we pay more attention to evil, perhaps because it's more prevalent. I think the Wheel of Time is interesting because we've already seen that human good effort isn't enough to save the world- the 'creator' has had to intervene, more than once. Still it hasn't got to the point of christian theology- God himself becoming flesh to lift us out of the mire...
20
heronblade: 2004-02-19
In philosophy, the "problem of evil" is reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and all good God. The problem arises from the assumption that a benevolent God would not intend that man suffer and that an omniscient and omnipotent God is capable of arrange the world according to that intention. Since evil and suffering exist, it would seem that God either intended them to exist, and therefore cannot be perfectly good; that he is not omniscient, he cannot foresee all evil and suffering; or is not omnipotent and is incapable of arranging the world entirely as he intends so as to remove evil and suffering.
The evil in contemporary philosophy is considered an argument for atheism, but in the works of medieval philosophers who examined this problem, the ‘atheistic argument' is not to be found. The arguments of natural theology demonstrated to them the existence of God, therefore they focused on how the existence of evil was compatible with the divine purity of God. They argued that since God is the author of everything that exists, and evil exists, God is therefore the creator of evil. A group of thinkers known as "Socinians" held, that the existence of evil was not incompatible with God's existence, but that it was incompatible with the existence of a God who is all-powerful. In religions such as Gnosticism and Manichaeism, and even some Christian groups. They dispense with the issue by maintaining forms of dualism; God is opposed by an evil counterpart, and is therefore not omnipotent.Another group feel that evil is the consequence of God permitting humans to have ‘free will'. Without the possibility to choose to do good or evil acts humanity would be nothing but automatons. Therefore God created everything, but evil is mans creation that resulted from a flawed choices. If God were to remove the moral evil that results from human choice then he would remove human freedom.
21
Underhill: 2004-04-11
I think that in this subject, it is better not to think of it comparing to reality, but other forms of fantasy. A fantasy, in a way, is a dream. In the case of the wheel of time, evil has the upper hand in the world. A dream where evil has the upper hand is a nightmare.
In most nightmares, the person dreaming is vulnerable to evil. He/she hopes for someone to save them but for some reason there isnt anyone to help them. Therefor people are forced to act for themselves and try and deal with the nightmare in their own way. Usually though that means waking up though before anything really happens, so I'm not really sure how to fully attach this analogy to the subject at hand.
The person reprsents the people of Randworld. The threat is the darkone and his minions who have access to the world and can do what they please with some limits. In this nightmare, the people are promised help from the creator, help that is desperately needed, but doesn't come. The solution to their problem is to deal with it themselves. Ages come and pass like nightmare that comes every night.
If it were just a normal dream, good and evil would be steady and equal powers. Since it is not that case, the rules of normal "good <=> evil" do not apply. People cannot rely on the creator to save them because the nightmare won't let them. Only the goofiest and cleverest plot twists can help them wake up from the nightmare.
-----
Sorry if this is sounds like a weak comparison. I think it might have been my first time making an analogy.
