Reviews

[Edge]

This thread is to post links, and comment on, online reviews of ROTE.

To kick it off: www.scifi.com/sfw/issue391/books2.html

My opinion of this review: the person who wrote it, seems to base her opinions exclusively on how 'Runes' compares to Tolkien's writing, and also demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of SRD's vision, particularly in judgements like this one:

Like Tolkien and other fantasists, Donaldson invents new words for his invented peoples and monsters. But he goes further, giving old words new meanings. Unfortunately, his new meanings are difficult or impossible to decipher. One battle scene in The Runes of the Earth describes "lood and shredded flesh [that] articulated the dust" (p. 515). If the dust is articulated, it is either talking or has jointed limbs. Neither interpretation makes sense. Here, as in too many other places, The Runes of the Earth leaves readers with no idea what Donaldson means.

On the positive side, the phrase she quotes - "articulated the dust" - is one that gives great insight into the concept of 'Runes of the Earth' as the Land's attempt to communicate with its inhabitants. It's just a pity she dispayed such stunning ignorance as to its relevance by attempting to mock it, claiming that "dust is articulated, it is... talking", "makes (no) sense."

Yeah, when she talks about "readers with no idea what Donaldson means" she's just parading her own ignorance and lack of understanding.

[Iryssa]

hmmm...yeah, I'd have to agree with you, Edge...
And I'm getting a little tired of people trying to make another Tolkien out of him...his accomplishment is his own...don't people get that?

[NostrumNarcotics]

I too wish people would not attempt to, as you put it "make another Tolkien out of him".

I thought that this review was utterly laughable!

As you say it just goes to highlight her own ignorance. She refers to SRD "his prose is stiff and occasionally opaque" I would suggest that this reviewer knows nothing at all about the use of language. Donaldson far surpasses Tolkien on occasion (and I hate to admit it really! ). As for his "stilted" dialogue; has this woman ever really read one of SRD's books!

And also her statement that Tolkien "invents" words shows even more of her arrogant stupidity, there are only a few words which have no basis in mythical "reality" and even some of those may have been adapted from names in the Ring Saga, the Epic of Gilgamesh etc...

There are many things you could say about SRD without mentioning Tolkien once, both good and bad, his preference for utterly self-pitying characters (my friends and I refer to one of these as "Mourning" Highland)
which are difficult to like , yet it adds a level of realism to the novels that Tolkien never approached. Laugh if you like (and you will have a chuckle, I think) but after reading the First and Second Chronicles, at the age of 14, I bought my first piece of jewellery, a white gold ring, I have worn it ever since "just in case"!

[Jasmina]

I think SRD is treated unfairly by the above mentioned reviewer.
I see it like this:
Anyone can 'string beads on a thread'.
Monkeys...Toddlers...Jewelers...Novelists'
Someone could put all the 'blue-ones' on a string and might be able to make a person think of 'water'
Yes?
So perhaps SRD carefully selects a very specific Blue, a Red, a Black and one with no color at all and we see the aftermath of a horrible battle in a desolate place where the survivors are walking around in a gore filled mess like a bunch of badly articulated puppets!
THAT's the difference!
Am I close?
See, I haven't read RotE yet so I'm only guessing based on my knowledge and love of SRD's other works.

[Wormwood]

Isn't the point of poetry to give impressions with words, and ofttimes using words in ways they were not really intended or stretching their definition in order to convey imagery, feeling, or action in a new way? Donaldson's prose is poetic in that regard. Plus, his vocabulary is big enough (chiaroscuro, roynish?) that has the reviewer ever contempplated that he might know older, less frequently used meanings of words? Jes' a thought. Donaldson's mastery of English and aptitude for creating mental imagery is beyond the reproach of all but the most gifted of scholars.

[esmerlover]

Yeah, the reviewer clearly doesn't understand poetic intent as far as the "articulate" phrase goes. If you interpret every word in its most literal sense, you have no business critiquing literature.

[CovenantJr]

Good post, esmerlover

[Thaale]

Nostrum, it’s amusing that you single out Morn, victim of a savage series of rapes, as an example of a self-pitying character. Morn is one of his few characters who has a real problem (not only the rapes, but also Davies) to worry about. In comparison, “I don’t think I exist unless Master Eremis is looking at me,” and “I have the power to save people but I’d have to kill a few murderous ur-viles to save innocent children” seem like self-pity with nothing behind them.

SRD has always misused words. He admits to not owning a thesaurus. He picks words out of his memory for effect, and, surprise, sometimes he uses them in novel ways.

There’s no point in jumping on a positive review. As for her specific “misstep” here, she’s right. Saying, “Blood and shredded flesh articulated the dust,” does not make any more sense just because in Runes the stones talk to Anele. What would that have to do with using articulate as a transitive verb with blood and flesh as the subjects and dust as the object? That certainly isn’t the same as saying that the dust is talking.

[ZefaLefeLaH]

Without Tolkien, there would be no Thomas Covenant.

And when you look at the first books, it is very obvious that SRD pretty much rewrote LOTR. It has everything in it, the ring, bombadil the forestal, ravers for the wraiths, the list goes on & on & on & on.

SRD has grown into his own since then, but it is extremely obvious where The Land comes from originally. Personally, I think that SRD has traded his maturity in writing for a lack of creativity. Any of the original books were far better than this new one. The worst two things being the ending & Esmer. It's cliche' cliff-hanger & walking dues ex machina. SRD has fallen since the time when he would have gone hungry if he didn't do these right. Much of the book makes little sense at all. Linden seems both intelligent and beyond stupid. Her son made models of revelstone & mt. thunder, but she feels as though going south is useful. They mostly ran non-stop and Stave located them easily even though he had been dealing with the Urvile storm for hours before he even left. If you can't escape, but you have to try anyway, at least run toward your son! He made two models of The Land and this isn't significant enough for her to comprehend until she is before Revelstone on accident???

It's a fun book to read, but I'd rather it wasn't written at all.

[Loredoctor]

As you say it just goes to highlight her own ignorance. She refers to SRD "his prose is stiff and occasionally opaque" I would suggest that this reviewer knows nothing at all about the use of language.

That criticism makes sense to me. While I think SRD is a great writer, he does make some clumsy sentences. There's a line in Mordant's Need that is a regular joke between a friend and myself: 'the ineffable blue sky". SRD isn't perfect, though better than most, so writes clumsy lines.

[I'm Murrin]

What exactly is wrong with 'the ineffable blue sky'?

[finn]

It's Friday night in Sydney and I've just got in from the Christmas do with the firm. Great day but ended up with some idiot wanting to argue with our group about nothing....put the b*stard in his place!

Then come home to this, from another idiot who has clearly no experience in the world of high level fantasy literature, or for that matter literature of any genre!

If this reviewer had been alive in 1620, surely no-one after Shakespeare would have dared to write a word! It's a shame the actul review was not published here so we couldn't review her use of the English language.

Obvious things......SRD was the natural successor to Tolkein, if JRRT was alive he'd probably be posting here!

The language is the best thing since the wonderful world of Wilde, where the language was elevated to heights seldom seen since. The English langugecan be so brilliant and malleable because you can use words in a discriptive sense to evoke feelings and emotions by the use of words out of their usual context: this is SRD's genius.

I love to read SRD because of his use of language which is rarely inaccurate according to the actual meaning of words, but is used in context more powerfully than than many other contemporary writers.

Perhaps someone should send this link to the reviewer's boss, to highlight the ineptitude and inadequacy of their work.

I'm a bit p*ssed (english for too many beers) but damn would like to get this reviewer and send them packing....complete bl**dy idiot, should be sacked!!!!!

[Loredoctor]

What exactly is wrong with 'the ineffable blue sky'?

Murrin, it's the same criticism that was labeled at the great H.P. Lovecraft; description of something without actually describing it, and expecting that to do. Lovecraft once created a creature that he called simply 'the unameable', or the weird geometries or aliens that 'could not be described'. This is poor writing, and critics agree with that. The term 'the ineffable blue sky', is simply saying 'a blue sky so great that it cannot be described'. I just think that is either lazy or clumsy.
We both know SRD is capable of delivering amazing descriptions 'loaded' with emotion and energy. The 'ineffable blue sky' line is weak.

[I'm Murrin]

It conveys the feel, if not the image, quite well, IMO. Making the readers feel something is much greater than simply showing it, don't you think? And anyway, why put more effort than necessary to describing the colour of the sky, when all you're trying to do is establish the atmosphere of the scene?

[King Elessar 8]

Without Tolkien, there would be no Thomas Covenant.

And when you look at the first books, it is very obvious that SRD pretty much rewrote LOTR. It has everything in it, the ring, bombadil the forestal, ravers for the wraiths, the list goes on & on & on & on.

I personally dont find it to be "very obvious" at all.

Look, I love both series more or less equally, but I have never understood the line of thought that Donaldson ripped off Tolkien. Sure, they use a few of the same motifs and themes, but in most cases a) Those motifs and themes werent orginal to Tolkien in the first place. Tolkien doesnt have exclusive rights to Rings in Fantasy (Rings of Power were common mythological devices long before the good professor was around) or explorations of the meaning of power. and b) In most cases the context in which Donaldson places his the people, places and things in his invented world is so different from Tolkien there are literally worlds of difference between them. The ring is each series for instance has a totally different philosophical underpining for each author, is used in an entirely different manner in the story proper, and has a utterly different meaning to the respective worlds each ring inhabits. The Forestal isnt Bombadil (he is actually a bit closer to the Ents) in any degree whatsoever, except that they both live in a forest. There is nothing in Tolkien that corresponds to Thomas Covenant (at all, which in of itself is of vast significance), Trell, the slaughter of the Giants, the Sandgorgons, or the Ritual of Desecration, to name just a few (a very few) points of extreme disimilarity. Likewise, Donaldon has no equivalent in his tale to Saruman the White, the Balrog, Valinor or Pippin Took, again out of many possible examples. There are a few obvious "borrowings" such as the Ramen from the Rohirrim, but even there context is everything, and Donaldson does a fairly adept job at making his horse people distinct from Tolkiens. This doesnt even begin to delve into the fact that Donaldson work is vastly darker and more intense than Tolkiens, and Tolkiens world is far more historically oriented. Anyway, this has been noted more than once but I think if you want to see a real "Tolkien rip-off" look no further than "Sword of Shannara", which out and out shamelessly pilfers Tolkiens material with no attempt at originality whatsoever. Donaldsons name doesnt deserved to be lumped in with that ilk.

[Loredoctor]

It conveys the feel, if not the image, quite well, IMO. Making the readers feel something is much greater than simply showing it, don't you think? And anyway, why put more effort than necessary to describing the colour of the sky, when all you're trying to do is establish the atmosphere of the scene?

Hmmm well me and some people disagree. Oh well.

[SoulBiter]

Without Tolkien, there would be no Thomas Covenant.

And when you look at the first books, it is very obvious that SRD pretty much rewrote LOTR. It has everything in it, the ring, bombadil the forestal, ravers for the wraiths, the list goes on & on & on & on.

I personally dont find it to be "very obvious" at all.

I couldnt agree more King Elessar! I find very few correlations between Tolkiens work and Donaldsons. Its comparing apples and oranges. Yes there are similarities.. they are both round and fruits. They both have seeds, etc etc.. but they are both very different fruits.

SoulBiter

[SoulBiter]

Saying, “Blood and shredded flesh articulated the dust,” does not make any more sense just because in Runes the stones talk to Anele. What would that have to do with using articulate as a transitive verb with blood and flesh as the subjects and dust as the object? That certainly isn’t the same as saying that the dust is talking.

Ive got my book out on loan so I cant look at the sentence and see what context he is using but Im goint to take a shot at it. He is not using the term articulated to mean that it is talking or that it or that he is forming joints. Instead of the verb articulated he is using the word as an adjective.

"To give visible or concrete expression to, as in "a spare design in which windows and doors are barely articulated."
To give definition to "shades of gray were chosen to articulate different spaces".

So the adjective "articulated" is a great word to use in this context and it indeed makes sense.

SoulBiter

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Hmmm... I think when he says things like 'ineffable blue skies' he's trying to get you to imagine it... it can be kind of weak from one point of view... but likewise he never gets too deep into describing the physical appearance of his characters either.
I think it's contrived, to try to get the imagination going... like how he doesn't have official pronunciations.

[[Syl]]

And you have to understand how Donaldson thinks. He's said himself that he doesn't see the story in images but in words. To someone like that (I'm in that category), a word like ineffable carries a lot more weight than most description would.