CHRIS%cit-vax@engvax.ARPA (06/11/85)
From: Chris Yoder <engvax!CHRIS@cit-vax>
How does one express superlatives enough for the Chronicles of Thomas
Covenant? There is so much going on in these books that it amazes me every time
that I reread the series. Everything that Chris Andersen says about the books I
agree with. As creative fantasy it's a work of art in my own (not so) humble
opinion. Sure, there are some similarities between it and LoTR, just as there
are between trees. I find these similarities superficial, and I also find that
they aren't the kind of gross copy-cating that makes the Sword of Shannara such
an infamous book. Personally, I belive that the Wounded Land series aren't so
much good fantasy as an exposition on ethics couched as good fantasy.
Thomas Covenant is a scuzwad, a jerk, an *sshole, and very, very real. I
agree that he's not so much an anti-hero as a wimp who refuses to fight. If
you don't hate him w/i the first 50 pages, you haven't been reading. But why do
you hate him? It's not because he's evil, but because he's so ineffectual. He
cannot, dare not, believe in the Land or become a power in it becuase then he
will lose touch with the leprosy that will slowly eat away his body 'till he
dies. All who accept and love him in the Land need him to defeat Lord Foul or
they will die. Thomas Covenant must finally walk the thin line between his
unbelief and the love that he has not experianced in the "real" world to a
solution that he can live with. By the end of the third book you either
(partially) understand Thomas Covenant, or you stopped reading the series 1/2
way through the first book.
If you read these books carefully, you will see much of human nature at
work. You will see love, love that believes w/o confirmation, hate, doubt, bone
headed perseverance, in short the whole gauntlet of human emotion. These books,
read deeply, are not for the faint of heart. I believe that they are also
clasics in every sense of the word. Read them, dig into them, enjoy them, be
disturbed by them, hate/love Thomas Covenant, but read these books (think I'll
go reread them again myself!).
-- Chris Yoder
UUCP --- {allegra|ihnp4}!scgvaxd!engvax!chris
ARPA --- engvax!chris@cit-vax.ARPA
{ The opinions here are representative of Huge Aircrash (a division of GM),
not me and *especially* not of my poor little keyboard. 8-)=
}ramsay@kcl-cs.UUCP (06/15/85)
In article <2261@topaz.ARPA> CHRIS%cit-vax@engvax.UUCP writes: > How does one express superlatives enough for the Chronicles of Thomas >Covenant? There is so much going on in these books that it amazes me every time >that I reread the series. As creative fantasy it's a work of art in my own >(not so) humble opinion. >Personally, I belive that the Wounded Land series aren't so >much good fantasy as an exposition on ethics couched as good fantasy. <Munchkin, munchkin> Thank [REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR DEITY] for that! Someone who got as big a mindf**k out of reading Thomas Covenant as I did. I was so annoyed when it got slagged off in THE PROBLEMS WITH SCIENCE FICTION IV.The guy who sent the articleobviously did not understand what it was all about. Thank you from the bottom of my ring for reaffirming that I'm not the only idiot yelling in the wilderness about how great these books are. Chris said everything I always say and more. One thing. When I read them the first time, I sympathised with Covenant,because I knew he would find it in him eventually.Perhaps lepers are everywhere. R.Ramsay <I am not a number, I am a free gift!>
steven@luke.UUCP (Steven List) (06/16/85)
In article <2261@topaz.ARPA> CHRIS%cit-vax@engvax.UUCP writes: >From: Chris Yoder <engvax!CHRIS@cit-vax> > > How does one express superlatives enough for the Chronicles of Thomas >Covenant? There is so much going on in these books that it amazes me every time >that I reread the series. Everything that Chris Andersen says about the books I >agree with. As creative fantasy it's a work of art in my own (not so) humble >opinion... > > Thomas Covenant is a scuzwad, a jerk, an *sshole, and very, very real. I >agree that he's not so much an anti-hero as a wimp who refuses to fight. If >you don't hate him w/i the first 50 pages, you haven't been reading. The biggest problem I have with Donaldson's dual trilogy (other than the depressing, frustrating, aggravating nature of the main character) is his use of language. I don't object to being forced to look up an occasional new word or twenty. But GIVE ME A BREAK. Donaldson seems to be incapable of writing two pages without introducing a word that nobody I know has ever heard of! I have discussed his works with several friends over the past few years. Many of us have indeed read them all the way through. And all feel the same way about the words. I haven't yet figured out why I read all six. I do know why I bought all three of the second trilogy: I bought an autographed edition of the first and wanted to complete the set. Reading them was more along the lines of fulfilling a commitment than pleasure. I just had to do it and get it over with. The odds are great that I will never buy another book by Donaldson again. -- *** * Steven List @ Benetics Corporation * (415) 940-6300 * {cdp,greipa,idi,oliveb,sun,tolerant}!bene!luke!steven ***
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/16/85)
I've read 5 books of T.C., which I found compulsive reading. There are
certainly some good ideas in the books, but I would shy WAY back from a lot
of the statements that have been made about the series. There is a certain
dreary sameness of tone in the books which eventually killed my interest.
Something that I didn't notice originally was that great tracts are
tremendously overwritten or contain other stylistic faults. I am told
(although I confess I don't remember the passage) that the following
sentence is taken from a T.C. book:
"The horses were virtually protrate on their feet."
One could, I suppose, take this to be poetic; but it gets to you after a
while. This same problem occurs in what is otherwise a very good story:
"Unworthy of the Angel".
What really struck me as absurd was someone's statement in an earlier
article that there was no connection between the Land and Middle Earth.
Donaldson himself has said that "I consider fiction to be the only valid
tool for theological inquiry." Certainly there is a strong mythopoeic
quality to the books; what is more important is the cosmology stated in the
very first book. Anyone who has read the _Silmarillion_ should be able to
recognize the obvious parallels between Sauron and Lord Foul. This is not
to say that I think there is any plagarism involved; but when two writers go
to write mythopoeic fiction dealing with cosmological issues, and when both
come out of a well-learned Judaeo-Christian background, it is to be expected
that there should be some parallels.
I would not say that the T.C. books are great literature (as I would, for
instance, say of LOTR). On the other hand, there is obvious talent there in
spite of the various problems.
Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoechrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/20/85)
In article <200@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >I've read 5 books of T.C., which I found compulsive reading. There are >certainly some good ideas in the books, but I would shy WAY back from a lot >of the statements that have been made about the series. There is a certain >dreary sameness of tone in the books which eventually killed my interest. I will agree that after the first trilogy, it does bog down a bit (and a lot in _The One Tree_). That is one reason why I consider the first trilogy to be the supior(sp?) of the two. >Something that I didn't notice originally was that great tracts are >tremendously overwritten or contain other stylistic faults. I am told >(although I confess I don't remember the passage) that the following >sentence is taken from a T.C. book: > > "The horses were virtually protrate on their feet." > >One could, I suppose, take this to be poetic; but it gets to you after a >while. This same problem occurs in what is otherwise a very good story: >"Unworthy of the Angel". > >What really struck me as absurd was someone's statement in an earlier >article that there was no connection between the Land and Middle Earth. >Donaldson himself has said that "I consider fiction to be the only valid >tool for theological inquiry." How does this imply a connection between T.C. and LOTR? >Certainly there is a strong mythopoeic >quality to the books; what is more important is the cosmology stated in the >very first book. Anyone who has read the _Silmarillion_ should be able to >recognize the obvious parallels between Sauron and Lord Foul. I have read the Silmarillion and I cannot see *ANY* parallels betwen Sauron and Lord Foul (except that they are both the bad guys). Could you point out some clear parallels? >This is not >to say that I think there is any plagarism involved; but when two writers go >to write mythopoeic fiction dealing with cosmological issues, and when both >come out of a well-learned Judaeo-Christian background, it is to be expected >that there should be some parallels. Again, what parallels? > >I would not say that the T.C. books are great literature (as I would, for >instance, say of LOTR). On the other hand, there is obvious talent there in >spite of the various problems. Most of that can be blamed on this being Donaldsons first works (even Tolkien had to have had some rough first works (unless he was a prodigy)). > >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Chris Andersen
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (06/20/85)
In article <225@luke.UUCP> steven@luke.UUCP (Steven List) writes: > >The biggest problem I have with Donaldson's dual trilogy (other than the >depressing, frustrating, aggravating nature of the main character) is >his use of language. I don't object to being forced to look up an >occasional new word or twenty. But GIVE ME A BREAK. Donaldson seems to >be incapable of writing two pages without introducing a word that nobody >I know has ever heard of! I, on the other hand, was familiar with almost all of the words Donaldson used in the Covenant books AND HE USED THEM INCORRECTLY! Donaldson seemed to be writing from a dictionary, finding interesting words and misusing them because he didn't really have a feel for them. Now before the flames start, I would like to say what I did the last time the Covenant books came up here. I read them eagerly as soon as I could get my hands on them, despite a prose-style that brought me to tears on occasion. Why? Two reasons. First reason. Story-telling ability is independent of writing ability in some people. This is true for Donaldson (and on the opposite end of the verbiage spectrum, Doc Smith). Donaldson grotesquely overwrites; Doc Smith couldn't write a believable piece of dialogue if his life depended on it. Yet when reading both writers, I ALWAYS WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED NEXT. Nothing to sneer at, and certainly enough to make a career out of. Second reason. NOBODY in any branch of literature (that I have read) can match Donaldson for vileness. Everyone else is a bush-leaguer compared to him: constantly despicable protagonists surrounded by even worse antagonists with just enough virtuous characters on the periphery to make the others seem worse in contrast. I am honest in praising him for this, not coyly insulting him. The creation of so many exasperatingly loathesome characters is a true achievement that no other writer (to my knowledge) has matched. Perhaps we readers would usually prefer to read books that instilled positive emotions, but instilling powerful negative emotions is just as valid an accomplishment. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (06/23/85)
In article <225@luke.UUCP> steven@luke.UUCP (Steven List) writes: [Regarding the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever] >...Reading them was more along the lines of fulfilling a commitment than >pleasure. I just had to do it and get it over with. The odds are great >that I will never buy another book by Donaldson again. Hmm you ought to try his book of short stories. Some are kind of dull but I thought that at least two were really good, worth buying the book. (I can't remember the name. I lent it to someone a while back.) -- - Sean Casey UUCP: {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean - Department of Mathematics ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA - University of Kentucky
SUTHERLAND@TL-20A.ARPA (06/25/85)
From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA> Jim Gardner says: > Second reason. NOBODY in any branch of literature (that I have > read) can match Donaldson for vileness. Everyone else is a > bush-leaguer compared to him: constantly despicable protagonists > surrounded by even worse antagonists with just enough virtuous > characters on the periphery to make the others seem worse in > contrast. Try Glen Cook's "Black Company" trilogy (The Black Company, Shadows Linger, and The White Rose). The Black Company of the title is a mercenary company trying to survive and fulfill their contracts (in that order). They are working for one of the most evil types I have run across in a long time. Their job is to put down a rebellion. Most things, however, are not what they seem (of course), but it still takes until the third book of the trilogy to meet anyone who might be accurately described as a "goodguy". The series is VERY bleak, but it is good reading. Unlike TC, it has no great literary pretensions. Instead it is a quality piece of workmanship; a good read with at least a few well developed characters. I recommend it for anyone who is not easily depressed. Dean F. Sutherland (sutherland@Tartan.ARPA)
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (06/25/85)
In article <1895@ukma.UUCP>, sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: > Hmm you ought to try his book of short stories. Some are kind of dull > but I thought that at least two were really good, worth buying the book. > (I can't remember the name. I lent it to someone a while back.) Would the person who borrowed Sean's book please post the title? Thanks.
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (06/26/85)
In article <542@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >In article <1895@ukma.UUCP>, sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: >> Hmm you ought to try his book of short stories. Some are kind of dull >> but I thought that at least two were really good, worth buying the book. >> (I can't remember the name. I lent it to someone a while back.) > > Would the person who borrowed Sean's book please post the title? >Thanks. I think the title is _Daughter of Royals_ -- out in trade (and now regular paperback, I think) from Del Rey, with a striking and not-very-dressed brunette cover -- and I don't have it, Sean, honest! -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
jeff1@garfield.UUCP (Jeff Sparkes) (06/26/85)
The name of the book is "Daughter of Regals". Donaldson says that some of the stories were written after the First Chronicles, and the rest after the Second. There is also a section that was cut out of the Illearth War. It tells the story of the mission to Seareach by Korik, Hyrim and Shetra. Apparently it was left out because it was told from Korik's point of view and this tended to support the belief that The Land was real. I haven't finished the book yet, but so far it's been good. Except for the Covenant excerpt, it hasn't been overly verbose. (Thank god!!) It's worth picking up in paperback. Jeff Sparkes garfield!jeff1 Tanstaafl - R.A.H
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (06/27/85)
> I think the title is _Daughter of Royals_ > Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm) Close, but no cigar. The title is "Daughter of Regals", and is indeed an excelent read. Especially the title story, and two others, "Ser Visals Tale" and "Worthy of the Angel". "Worthy of the Angel" in particular is quite Zelaznyeqeue. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust) (06/27/85)
> > The biggest problem I have with Donaldson's dual trilogy (other than the > depressing, frustrating, aggravating nature of the main character) is > his use of language. I don't object to being forced to look up an > occasional new word or twenty. But GIVE ME A BREAK. Donaldson seems to > be incapable of writing two pages without introducing a word that nobody > I know has ever heard of! I have discussed his works with several > friends over the past few years. Many of us have indeed read them all > the way through. And all feel the same way about the words. > And when you DO look up the words, you find that his usage is--more often then not--wrong. He is very aware of the sound of the words--the poetry of the language, and this is good. But he seems willing to sacrifice the meaning of the words in order to acheive this poetry, and, since I happen to know what at least some of them mean, and this is a constant source of frustration to me. -- SKZB