mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell) (01/14/85)
[ Lets see how the line eater like White Gold! ]
Has anyone out there in netland read "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the
Unbeliever" ? I'm going through all six books for the *third* time!!!
This has got to be some of the best liturature since,... who knows when!
Not only is the writing style great (sends me to the dictionary for a new
word every few chapters :-), but it would make terrific frp gaming material.
What I wouldn't give to be able to create a 'forbidding' in a n AD&D game!
If anyone would like to persue the idea of gaming in Stephen
Donaldson's "world", send me mail.
If you *have not* read these books and like Tolkien ("The Hobbit", etc)
you will very likely enjoy them.
--
Mike Blackwell ihnp4!aicchi!mdb
"At this time of night (morning?) who has ideas to claim???"crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/14/85)
I read the first of the Covenant chronicles and thought it was well written (although sort of a downer -- I know too many people in real life who look for every possible way to avoid good feelings to be real comfortable with it in literature). The second beek ended up against my Wall Spot (where all books that exceed a certain frustration level end up). The reason may seem silly -- certainly my wife thinks so. But the demonic things that Donaldson introduces in the second book are all named with Sanskrit words that represent very good things in Buddhism or Hinduism (moksha, for example). The ``cognative dissonance'' was simply too much for my little mind, and knocked me out of the book every time. After all: would devout Catholics be happy with a book in which the main villains were named Jesus, Mary, and Joseph? -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (jagardner) (01/14/85)
In article <366@aicchi.UUCP> mdb@aicchi.UUCP (Blackwell) writes: >Not only is the writing style great (sends me to the dictionary for a new >word every few chapters :-), but it would make terrific frp gaming material. Pardon me, but I have to object. Sending you to the dictionary every few chapters is not a mark of good style, it is a mark of intrusive style. This can be forgiven when a novel has a good excuse (e.g. The Book of the New Sun tetralogy by Gene Wolfe, four books that are written in the first person by someone in the far future), but in the Covenant books, it always sounds like Donaldson is just trying to sound erudite beyond his true grasp of the English language. Half the time when he drops one of his ten-dollar words, he gets the meaning somewhat wrong, as if he has found the word in a dictionary and used it without really understanding what it means. Donaldson's great accomplishment is that the Thomas Covenant novels are still readable despite the too too self-conscious style. I can't put my finger on why this is--I suppose the secret is that he is so totally at home with the vileness of his leading characters. I can't think of a single fantasy book with a VILLAIN who matches the sheer despicable natures of Donaldson's protagonists. Their occasional good points (only displayed at the end of the third book of each trilogy) are there only as grudging concessions to the good that hides in even the most self-pitying screw-ups. So many other writers have to INVENT loathesomeness in their novels. Donaldson seems to be able to find it effortlessly with no measure of falseness detectable. It may sounds like I am damning the books, but I'm not. I awaited each one eagerly, and read them in as few sittings as possible. His writing is forced, obnoxious, and pretentious, but his unflinching pursuit of the worst that blind insensitive people do to themselves is unrivalled in fantasy. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
jvz@loral.UUCP (John Van Zandt) (01/15/85)
I also highly recommend the series of books by Stephen Donaldson. He manages to create a very real world, quite different from our own. The character development is thorough and the story line draws the reader into the book in an all-consuming way. The story revolves around Thomas Covenant, a leper who finds himself in a world where magic exists. What is unique about this book is that the main character finds it as difficult to believe that it is happening to him as I would myself. The book has much to say about belief systems and the human emotional situation. John Van Zandt Loral Instrumentation uucp: ...ucbvax!sdcsvax!jvz
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/16/85)
For those who haven't heard of these books from any source but the last posting,
I should mention that there are definitely two schools of thought on this
series of books. The previous posting summarized one. The other, in brief,
regards them as overlong, repetitive, and derivative, and considers their
protagonist to be a major pain in the ass. I belong to this school. With
no intention to start yet another debate on the merits of these books, I
would like to make it clear that they are not universally admired. If in
doubt, of course, read them yourself. The first two should make it clear
whether you wish to continue.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherchabot@amber.DEC (l s chabot) (01/16/85)
What Jim Gardner says about the protagnists in the Thomas Covenant books is true... I prefer Donaldson's detective novels to his fantasy trilogies. Yeah, a character in each is blind and hurting and continues to hurt himself or herself, but it's not on such a grandious scale and the story surrounds something that causes the character to see again (without killing everyone in sight, losing all friends, or other depressing global disasters). The requirement of the publishers that the mysteries be published under a pseudonym puzzles me--unless they're worried that the mystery audience would be appalled to pick up the fantasy, because I, coming from the opposite direction, was delighted: _The_Man_Who_Killed_His_Brother_ is clearly Donaldson in style, but it's Donaldson playing within rules of the real world which constrain catastrophes and the impact of human grief. _The_Man_Who_Risked_His_Partner_ is shorter, deals with a problem leftover from the first novel, but stands on its own as a separate novel. [It also has a strange paperback cover with flaps, and on the inside back you find a biographical sketch of Reed Stephens: a retired cop who teaches criminology at a university and who studies the works of Tolkien and Donaldson (>ahem< maybe a bit pretentious, that, in the same phrase). The splashy cover may be promising--the first novel entered bookstores quietly and lingered unseen (luckily about a year, long enough for me to find one).] Can't comment about running to the dictionary--I don't remember doing any, but then, I'm *that* kind of debugger... L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/16/85)
I had trouble getting started on the Donaldson books. The style
sort of reminded me of "The Worm Ouroboros" (maybe not quite as bad).
Maybe I'll try again, since people seemed to like them. I enjoyed
the Gene Wolfe "Book of the New Sun" better than anything I had
read since 1966 ("Lord of the Rings"). How far should you have to read
in the Donaldson books before it should be clear whether or not
you are going to like them?ee163acp@sdcc13.UUCP (DARIN JOHNSON) (01/16/85)
> >Not only is the writing style great (sends me to the dictionary for a new > >word every few chapters :-), but it would make terrific frp gaming material. > I think Donaldson's use of English is not overly erudite as some would suggest. I didn't have to run to the dictionary every few pages (maybe once per novel). I admit he used a very large thesaurus (sp?) but this is usually considered good writing. If it came to the point where I couldn't figure out what was going on then I would be a bit upset. > I can't think of a > single fantasy book with a VILLAIN who matches the sheer despicable > natures of Donaldson's protagonists. Their occasional good points > (only displayed at the end of the third book of each trilogy) are there > only as grudging concessions to the good that hides in even the most > self-pitying screw-ups. I think this idea of having someone a trifle on the despicable side for a protagonist (don't look it up, it means hereo :-) ) is what made the series transcend mere adventurism. Besides, Lancelot wasn't so noble but we all consider him a hero. Darin Johnson
berosetti@watrose.UUCP (Barry Rosetti) (01/17/85)
> > The reason may seem silly -- certainly my wife thinks so. But the > demonic things that Donaldson introduces in the second book are all > named with Sanskrit words that represent very good things in Buddhism > or Hinduism (moksha, for example). > > After all: would devout Catholics be happy with a book in which the main > villains were named Jesus, Mary, and Joseph? > The reason iiss silly. Devout Catholics are usually not interested in the 'escapism' of fantasy literature (not to mention AD&D) at all (cf. Moral Majority). Literature of this type is designed for an audience that wants the excitment of that 'escape', just as pulp romances provide the same type of escape (if not the same form). Donaldson provides a wide range of concepts and names that the average reader never encountered before (myself included). I find the new ideas interesting and they provide many bits and pieces to use in my ongoing campaign. However, to the reader who knows the derivation of these words or concepts, you just have to take some of it with a grain of salt. The author can't please everyone and even if the books offend some, they entertained many many others. Barry Rosetti ( watrose!berosetti )
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland) (01/17/85)
> I had trouble getting started on the Donaldson books. The style > sort of reminded me of "The Worm Ouroboros" (maybe not quite as bad). > Maybe I'll try again, since people seemed to like them. I enjoyed > the Gene Wolfe "Book of the New Sun" better than anything I had > read since 1966 ("Lord of the Rings"). How far should you have to read > in the Donaldson books before it should be clear whether or not > you are going to like them? I thought the books were fascinating. Even though I owned the whole first set, I gaps of about a couple months between books because I would decide that I didn't like it after a book and stop reading. However, I always wnet back. Now that I have finished both sets, I love them. I see what Donaldson was up to. Their great! Keep trying, they are an aquired taste. Randy Buckland Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/17/85)
Barry Rosetti knows some interesting Catholics, or maybe his definition of ``devout'' is different from mine. In the private Catholic boarding school I was sent to there was an awful lot of well-read fantasy and science fiction, and no less than 3 d&d groups playing after school, so I think his generalisation isn't universal. Mauybe saying that the evil forces were named ``Jesus, Mary and Joseph'' wasn't the best analogy. How about ``beauty'' ``integrity'' and ``radiant spirituality''? I forget the other ones -- those I remember.. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
wald@mhuxd.UUCP (Bob Waldstein) (01/18/85)
> I had trouble getting started on the Donaldson books. The style > sort of reminded me of "The Worm Ouroboros" (maybe not quite as bad). > How far should you have to read > in the Donaldson books before it should be clear whether or not > you are going to like them? I read them all the way through, based on past net recommendations (yeah net). I found that I didn't particularly like them. Hard to say what kept me going. I think its one of those SFs that seem like lots of good ideas are floating on the border that will justify reading the book. However, there were not enough in my mind to justify the number of pages; and I didn't particularly enjoy this prevalence of EVIL as independent (or whatever). I could say the above about alot of the SF I read - the only thing that would make me say don't bother is the number of pages. AN opinion of: bob waldstein, ihnp4!mhuxd!wald
kek@mgweed.UUCP (Kit Kimes) (01/22/85)
I read the first book of the original trilogy and enjoyed it. I looked forward to reading the second book but could never get into it. I think I read about 50 pages and just gave up. I couldn't really put my finger on what I didn't like, but I just stopped reading it about a year ago and have never tried again. If you like this style of writing, and haven't read them yet, I heartily recommend the Earth Sea Trilogy by Le Guin. You won't be disappointed. Kit Kimes AT&T Consumer Products Montgomery Works Montgomery, Il. 60538-0305 ..!ihnp4!mgweed!kek
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (01/26/85)
While I have read most of the T.C. books, in retrospect I wonder how I ever
did it. Donaldson's writing style is, for me, hard to swallow, and the books
seem to me to be grossly overwritten. Among friends of mine, the line
"The horses were virtually prostrate upon their feet"
has acquired almost a mythological flavor; I must say that I find the notion
of hoofless horses being virtually standing while at the same time lying on
the ground to be mildly amusing, even if it isn't a model of good metaphor.
Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoetracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (02/01/85)
Yeay! I have always thought that the CoTC were the most boring fantasy books
I'd ever encountered. A dull, stupid "hero" in a contrived world. Thomas
Covenant haters unite! I even begrudge the hour I spent trying to read the
first book. What trash.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracycolonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (02/04/85)
> While I have read most of the T.C. books, in retrospect I wonder how I ever > did it. Donaldson's writing style is, for me, hard to swallow, and the books > seem to me to be grossly overwritten. Among friends of mine, the line > > "The horses were virtually prostrate upon their feet" > > has acquired almost a mythological flavor ... I waded only halfway through the first one, and gave up. Donaldson's style is not just overwritten, it's over-wrought. And he has the imagination of a cockroach. Besides, I have heard that somebody got leprosy from reading his books. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
noel@hpfcrs.UUCP (noel) (02/11/85)
Author?
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (02/19/85)
> Author?
Stephen Donaldson. He has written one other book (which is still
in Trade, & I cannot remember its name). He has a short story in
Nine Visions (ed. Anrea Melrose, Seabury Press NY, ISBN 0-8164-2490-X).
Interesting, but you might not want to buy the book just for that one
story. Apparently has written other shorts, from the bio.
Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{ARPA,UUCP}