Any negative views?

[I'm Murrin]

I remember being swept in by the narrative, completely unaware of anything else around me, and stumbling headlong into a word that I needed to look up. I couldn't just pass it by, for I wanted the full meaning of the prose.

I felt the opposite - I could get immersed in the prose enough that it didn't really matter if I came across an unfamiliar word - I usually got a feel for it from the use and context of the word. Although I must say, when I finally found out (this morning, actually) what 'Roynish' meant, it didn't fit my impression at all - although it has made it easier to reconcile my image of the ur-viles with the new images of Demondim.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I'm with you Murrin. Although a side effect of that was me not actually getting much of a vocabulary boost from reading the books... :p

[I'm Murrin]

Well I did learn the meanings of quite a few of them eventually, but the first time I read through my mind just skiped over the bits I didn't understand fully, and it did nothing to spoil the impact of the books. Although it was strange to realise how few of such words he used in Runes.

[aiken]

I think that the fact that SRD used fewer esoteric words made Runes far more readable. Personally, I think SRD's style, especially his vocabulary, substantially hurt his popularity in the 1st and 2nd series. His characters and plotting made him popular. But if his prose were as approachable as Stephen King or Robert Jordan, for example, I think his sales would have been much larger. I thought Runes was an easier read than LFB or TWL, and was better because of it.

[burgs]

I am not a fan of either Stephen King or Robert Jordan (anymore), but I do agree that I found the cleaner prose pleasant. I had secretly hoped that he would not write this with the grand operatic style he employed in the earlier chronicles, and was very pleased to find that he didn't.

[Seareach]

I had secretly hoped that he would not write this with the grand operatic style he employed in the earlier chronicles, and was very pleased to find that he didn't.

The "operatic style" is actually something I miss. IMHO that is part of what the Chronicles are. I do agree that maybe this vocab etc in the past Chronicles may have "hurt his popularlity" a bit, but that didn't stop him from having a NYB!

[burgs]

I liked the operatic style, just not the GRAND operatic style. Sometimes it was just a bit too much for my taste. But I was able to look past what I considered overwriting (and SRD has acknowledged this as well), and enjoy the books - IMMENSELY.

[dlbpharmd]

For those who've been complaining about the lack of modernization seen in the 3500 year interval in the Land:

Steven Mullen: Mr. Donaldson,

In Runes, when Linden comes to Kevin's Watch, she notices something that looks like smog. This got me wondering. About 7,000 years have passed since Covenant first came to the Land, yet we see no signs of industrialization. Why are they still in the middle ages? The obvious answer is "because the story requires it," but I was wondering if you have an answer from the viewpoint of the story rather than from the reader's world.

I have two answers, one for the first six "Covenant" books, the other for "The Last Chronicles."

1) What would be the *point* of "industrialization" in a world where magic "works"? Sub-questions. In the first trilogy, what would be the point of industrialization in a place where "service to the physical world" is the highest good? In the second trilogy, what would the Clave have to gain by taking their society in that direction? Lord Foul's goals are already being achieved; and it's difficult to imagine success for those goals through any sort of mechanical means.

2) Why would the Masters, who don't use weapons or tools themselves, encourage--or even permit--the development of physical instrumentalities? They're probably smart enough to know that no mere weapon or tool (mechanical contrivance) can oppose the sorts of dangers that arise from Despite. Certainly in our own world the struggle against evil has only been aided by industrialization when evil takes the form of armies. Other than that, industrialization seems more apt to serve evil (e.g. toxic dumping) than oppose it.

(11/10/2004)

[duchess of malfi]

Also -- how long have humans been in existence in our world? And for how many of those years have humans been capable of making transoceanic voyages and how long have we had steam power and other advanced technologies?

Given the bulk of human history, a pastoral and/or low tech agricultural society makes sense...

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I think that grand opratic style is SORELY needed in todays fantasy. Not to offend, but dear god, the level of complexity in the schlock AD&D novel is just... I don't know, sad to read.
I think something with a heavy vocabulary and complexity is needed simply to win back fantasy readers who haven't felt there's been anything decent to read!

[Creator]

I found, back when I read it in high school, that the vocabulary was a big turn off for a lot of people that I tried to push the book on. As was TC's stubbornness.

My daughter (17 yr old in high school) is reading LBF now - at dad's urging. She wants to "slap" TC.

[burgs]

Some of the greatest writers of our time - most of them in fact - have produced extraordinary works of literature without causing a person to look up fifteen words every three pages. Even one of SRDs favorite authors (who uses a few words that SRD does), Joseph Conrad, tells a marvelous story without resorting to six words per paragraph that you don't understand. Look at all of the greats: Faulkner, Hemingway, Hawthorne and others - they don't make you stop every minute to look up a word.

The use of "big words" is often a sign of showing off. I firmly believe that Donaldson could have achieved his operatic style without using so many words that forced people to turn to a dictionary. The goal of writing is to produce something clean and clear, and above all uninterruptable. If you take your reader out of your story time and time again, you risk losing them entirely. And let's face it, droves of people were turned off by that style. I remember so many times that even within the space of one paragraph I was turning to a dictionary upwards of six times - and while I don't have the most advanced vocabularly in the world, it's by no means shabby.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

As far as that goes, the showing off bit, I think that SRD showed such an unbelievable versatility with his vobabulary that it must have been natural for him to write in that style at the time. Of course, things change, as do attitudes. Perhaps he doesn't feel quite as dramatic as he used to?

[burgs]

He does possess an enviable vocabularly, but that's not a good excuse for employing it to the extent that he did. The writers I mentioned probably all have similar vocabularies, and they didn't take an oar and beat their readers over the head with it.

I would argue that Conrad has an operatic style to his writing, and as an extension of that argument, "big words" aren't necessary to the achievement of said style.

Donaldson admitted that he engaged in some serious overwriting during the first and second chrons, but he did so because he deemed it necessary at the time. I'm guessing that by now he realizes that it isn't necessary.

[CovenantJr]

I always just took it to be his style. For example, I've been told many times that I speak in an unnecessarily elaborate way, particularly for my age, but that's just how I am. I speak how I type, on the whole.

[burgs]

If you replaced all of the undecipherable and massy words from his text, and replace them with more distinguishable synonyms, he still has a terrific style.

And that's what we're seeing here in Runes. That's one of the reasons I like it so much.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I type how I speak. I mean, I type how I WOULD speak if I didn't have a lot of insecurities and I were able to express myself at the speed with which I think of what I want to communicate to others.
Ah well

[Variol Farseer]

Some of the greatest writers of our time - most of them in fact - have produced extraordinary works of literature without causing a person to look up fifteen words every three pages. Even one of SRDs favorite authors (who uses a few words that SRD does), Joseph Conrad, tells a marvelous story without resorting to six words per paragraph that you don't understand. Look at all of the greats: Faulkner, Hemingway, Hawthorne and others - they don't make you stop every minute to look up a word.

Although Conrad probably had to stop every minute to look up a word while writing, especially when he was still learning English.

The use of "big words" is often a sign of showing off. I firmly believe that Donaldson could have achieved his operatic style without using so many words that forced people to turn to a dictionary.

What you must remember, I think, is that SRD was trying to achieve that operatic style by using the sound of words for effect. The actual meanings of the strange words he used were often (as he might put it) imprecisely related to their function in the story. This is a common technique in poetry and songwriting: cf. the collected works of Elvis Costello. It's less than ideally suited to prose fiction, especially a work of prose as long as the Covenant series.

I think as SRD matured as a writer, he discovered that it was possible to produce that operatic effect without the litter of strange words; but also, I think his current editor doesn't understand the effect he's trying to produce, wouldn't approve if she did understand, and has edited out a lot of the distinctive Donaldson flavour from the current series.

The goal of writing is to produce something clean and clear, and above all uninterruptable.

Well, that's one possible goal of writing, but hardly the only one.

If you take your reader out of your story time and time again, you risk losing them entirely. And let's face it, droves of people were turned off by that style. I remember so many times that even within the space of one paragraph I was turning to a dictionary upwards of six times - and while I don't have the most advanced vocabularly in the world, it's by no means shabby.

On the other hand, droves of people were attracted by that style. You'll find some of them right here on the Watch. Further droves of people just weren't bothered one way or another. Most readers, you know, are not highly sensitive to prose style, and many readers, when confronted with an unfamiliar word, will attempt to glark the meaning from context rather than run for a dictionary. (I used this method perforce when first reading LFB during a 12-hour trip on a Greyhound bus. For some reason or other, Greyhound does not provide in-flight dictionaries.)

A considerable percentage of SRD's early readers were not fantasy readers otherwise; a good many had not even read LOTR, and a great many never went on to read any of the cheap imitation Tolkien put out in subsequent decades by Ye Olde Baloney Factory. One reason for this is that SRD's use of language, while unquestionably idiosyncratic, was vivid, rich, and interesting; whereas most modern fantasy writers employ a flat, dull style that is barely capable of conveying the mundane and trivial, let alone the weird and elemental.

The trouble with trying to write something 'clean and clear and uninterruptable' is that it's safe, unambitious, and low — I mean, if that is the total extent of your desire. If you fall short of your goal, you've produced nothing but rubbish. Even if you succeed at being clean and clear, you're likely to produce something that is entirely interruptable, for the simple reason that it's just plain boring.

Aim for the stars, and even if you miss, you may hit the moon instead. And if you don't hit the moon, you'll at least put on a hell of a show. I'll give SRD credit for that, even at his (infrequent) worst.

[CovenantJr]

The trouble with trying to write something 'clean and clear and uninterruptable' is that it's safe, unambitious, and low — I mean, if that is the total extent of your desire. If you fall short of your goal, you've produced nothing but rubbish. Even if you succeed at being clean and clear, you're likely to produce something that is entirely interruptable, for the simple reason that it's just plain boring.

Aim for the stars, and even if you miss, you may hit the moon instead. And if you don't hit the moon, you'll at least put on a hell of a show. I'll give SRD credit for that, even at his (infrequent) worst.

That is supported by something SRD said at the Q&A yesterday. One of the audience asked him what he thought makes the difference between a good fiction writer and a great one. One of the elements SRD cited was the willingness to push beyond what the author knows s/he is capable of. A lot of authors write books that they already know how to write, so the books can be good, entertaining, even moving, but not great. Push the boundaries. Do more than you think you're capable of. SRD always does, IMO.

[burgs]

Speaking to Variol's post, you're absolutely correct with SRDs word choices. In fact, if you look them up in the OED, many of them are preceded by poetic, literary, and some even with the designator of archaic (although that has little to do with cadence). And you reinforced my point that as he matured he realized he didn't need to reach so far to achieve his goal.

My essential claim is this. Yes, I realize that SRD attracted millions of fans, even with the operatic prose. But without it - and he realized later in life that he didn't need to be quite so florid with his choice of words - he would have attracted every single one of those that were/are huge fans, and he would also (I believe) have attracted many, many more. Perhaps - perhaps - his career wouldn't be in such a state of decline (and I know this particular discussion is multi-faceted and that I'm only focusing on one element) if when writing Covenant he had a following twice the size. And I truly believe that he could have achieved that following, simply because back in high school when I had friends who read fantasy, I practically had to pay people to read Covenant. Sure, he probably would have lost some with Mordan'ts Need (because it wasn't Covenant) and some more with The Gap series (same reason), but the number left over would have been huge. And he might not have worries (if indeed he truly has them as stated in the GI) about putting his kids through college and paying his mortgage.

Behind the operatic prose there is a wonderful story, deep and profound, and unfortunately the difficulty of the prose kept many readers away. (So did Covenant's rape of Lena, and the fact that he needed to believe the Land was a dream so that when he woke up he could continue to survive - that drove people mad.)