Reviews

[W.B.]

Like Tolkien and other fantasists, Donaldson invents new words

Tolkien, a philologist would have said he rediscovered old words. Donaldson uses words people don't always use, in ways they aren't always used.

If the dust is articulated, it is either talking or has jointed limbs.

Like many Donaldson vocabulary choices, better sense is made if one remembers the more obscure or less frequently used definitions of words.

Though their series are significantly different, Donaldson's treatment of his characters resembles Tolkien's: Both put their characters into horrific situations and subject them to great physical and emotional pain.

If you're going to write a book that's at all interesting, there has to be conflict, and you must, therefore, put your characters through hell. Very few books contain no suffering whatsoever. Whether it's court-of-the-star-chamber or garden variety unhappiness, someone probably at least must feel some anxiety.

I think the described use of ineffable is not completely unorthodox, though not common. A way of amplfying something to an extreme degree is to say it's unexpressable. "Ineffable sadness." "Ineffable beauty." Even without using that particular word, people use the same idea when they say "I can't say how grateful I am" or something to that effect.

Here's another review, more helpful, I think, in describing the book (though I don't understand the connection to ELF):

www.sfsite.com/11a/re187.htm

And this review blurb included reaction from a non-Covenant series reader who picked up Runes:

www.bookbrowse.com/index.cfm?page=title&titleID=1457

[High Lord Tolkien]

It seems like that at least once a year, in the Tolkien newsgroups, a discussion gets started about what was "original" in the Tolkien universe.

His work is said to derive from Norse myths, classical works, Reingold Ring, Biblical.... all that stuff.

I imagine that without Tolkien people would be doing that to Donaldson's work as well.

For the record I thing that Donaldson's universe is original enough for me.

[Thaale]

All this reflexive defense of everything SRD is way out of place. The review originally linked to is very positive. What’s gained by trashing someone who has written a generally positive review of Runes?

Most of the people on this board – myself included – are fans of SRD’s writing. That doesn’t mean everyone here has to think everything about his writing is flawless – especially since SRD himself has often admitted to being less than perfect. Why are his loyalists so much more doctrinaire about this than he himself is?

SoulBiter, you’re talking about a participle, and “articulated” is not one here. It’s the verb in that sentence. “Shredded,” OTOH, is a participle, a verb form used as an adjective to modify “flesh.”

[Thaale]

It seems like that at least once a year, in the Tolkien newsgroups, a discussion gets started about what was "original" in the Tolkien universe.

His work is said to derive from Norse myths, classical works, Reingold Ring, Biblical.... all that stuff.

True. But what all those sources have in common is great age, unlike TLOTR. If you do a modern retelling of The Odyssey (Cold Mountain, e.g.), there is no stigma attached. It’s understood that our culture is steeped in The Odyssey and its themes. It’s in the public domain, not just legally, but in every respect.

OTOH, if somebody comes along ten years later and writes a book that’s an obvious rip-off of Cold Mountain, he can expect to get a very different reaction than Frazier received.

I’m not calling TCOTC a Tolkien rip-off. I’m just pointing out that it’s not only in Tolkien circles that a big difference is seen between a guy who was influenced by the Bible (big shock), and a guy who copies last year’s bestseller that was influenced by the Bible.

[Seareach]

Most of the people on this board – myself included – are fans of SRD’s writing. That doesn’t mean everyone here has to think everything about his writing is flawless – especially since SRD himself has often admitted to being less than perfect. Why are his loyalists so much more doctrinaire about this than he himself is?

Well said Thaale! I agree whole-heartedly!

[finn]

[i]v. ar·tic·u·lat·ed, ar·tic·u·lat·ing, ar·tic·u·lates (-lt)
v. tr.
To pronounce distinctly and carefully; enunciate.
To utter (a speech sound) by making the necessary movements of the speech organs.
To express in coherent verbal form; give words to: couldn't articulate my fears.
To fit together into a coherent whole; unify: a plan to articulate nursing programs throughout the state.
Anatomy. To unite by forming a joint or joints.
Architecture. To give visible or concrete expression to (the composition of structural elements): a spare design in which windows and doors are barely articulated. [/i]

I think there are at least a couple of the above which could be used to justify the use of "articulate" in the context highlighted by Cynthia Ward.

IMO, the review is shallow and poorly written, with little understanding of the genre and a literal, matter of fact approach, which seems incongruous with a fanatsy reviewer; she has a style that would fit right in with an accountany office. She also appears to be in some doubt as to whether SRD is or is not like JRRT or is or is not similar to other high fantasy series. For example:

[quote]Like most high fantasy series written in the wake of The Lord of the Rings, Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant has some resemblances to J.R.R. Tolkien's trilogy. [/quote]

....and the final sentence of the same paragraph:

[quote]Too, he is sometimes antiheroic, committing dark deeds unimaginable for the protagonists of other fantasy epics.[/quote]

An interesting use of "Too".


The Tolkien comparison is again a cop-out, much along the lines of saying Dune is similar to Blade Runner (DADOES) because (her rationale) you'll find them both on the SciFi shelf.

If this were addressed to the general public it would be a bit misleading but the review is addressed to the fantasy/SciFi community at SciFi.com and should really have more substance.

As for the source material of fantasy, it's all pretty much from the classics and mythology/religeon as High Lord Tolkein said. Most of the "icons" are recognised from the past when heroes named their weapons and talismans were abundant. When magic crept into tales and Gods strode along the same paths as men. Old tales were embellished with these details to make them more epically proportioned and fabulous when compared to the deeds and lives of everyday people. I assume that's why many TV shows are set in rich and expensive setting and why Shakespeare elevated his dramas to the courts of Lords and Kings.

[SoulBiter]

SoulBiter, you’re talking about a participle, and “articulated” is not one here. It’s the verb in that sentence. “Shredded,” OTOH, is a participle, a verb form used as an adjective to modify “flesh.”

I agree, But I also stick with my earlier posting in the way the word "articulated" is used. It is saying that Blood and shredded flesh articulated (gave definition to) the dust.

SoulBiter

[lurch]

...I found the review condescending from the start,,perhaps belittleling,,and then she uses that belittleing against the author..another form of Kevins Dirt. Say it ain't so, then put it down because it isn't what you say it should be....
...To have used the articulated example was a mistake. As i have pointed out elsewhere,,its often the 3rd or deepest buried definition of a word that Donaldson is refering to,,so, therefore the reviewer is shewn to be one who speaks from what she knows rather than one who isn't a know it all, and is habituated to looking things up for enlightenment. Again, this relates back to opening paragraph of this post.
..Which brings me to this,,I think the reviewer is more interetsed in how she is perceived in her writing, than the book she is writing about. Unfortunate, but, it seems to be screaming at me right from the opening sentence.
...Now to the blue skys...ineffable blue skys...My comments on what I have read are difficult to put across. There is a " polarity" or a form of irony in describing blue skys as ineffable..or just,,sky, as ineffable. Every writer since Ogg the caveman, has described the sky..the blue sky..and I am willing to bet,,each has tried to come up with an original way of describing the blue sky. Far from lazy, i found Donaldson being ironic, in a subtle way in the use of ineffable. I find the ironic polarity thru-out Runes. Again..consider,,the opening sentence..just that sentence. Hasn't every one us apon reading that line stopped and said to ourselves..what in the
wide wide world of sports * IS going on here!!??
...Obviously its also of my opinion that the reviewer has missed the irony and therefore the theme of this latest work from Donaldson., while she checks herself out in her own mirror...oh well..Doesn't speak well of her editor, if there is one,,or the site sponsoring her reviews....MEL
... *..of course I refer to Slim Picken's great line in Mel Brook'es , Blazzing Saddles. Still can't make up mind which I preferred him in,, Dr Strangelove or Blazzing Saddles..and the question arises,,how in the world did such a character actor, get lassoed into Two Great Classics?..MEL

[Nerdanel]

You know, there is a published-in-a-book and authentic Tolkien drawing of Orthanc floating around that is from a period before the completion of LotR. When I saw it, my first reaction was... Sandhold! My second reaction was a reflection on how Kasreyn did and did not resemble Saruman. I see a lot of deep similarities and differences between the works. One example is the coeval relationship of the Waynhim and the ur-viles, whereas in Tolkien Orcs are corruptions of Elves and very different from each other. Both authors utilize similar story elements but have wildly variable styles.

That said, people always keep forgetting that Tolkien had modern (to him) influences too. I see clear connections to the likes Lord Dunsany (early Silmarillion is basically a million times superior version of The Gods of Pegana) and William Hope Hodgson. I think the legal concept of copyright (ridiculously long/practically eternal concept nowadays anyway with the stupid Mickey Mouse "protection" laws) does not really relate ot the situation.

Tolkien is my #1 author. Donaldson is my #1 living author. I also adore Lovecraft and think mood-enhancing indescribable things are just fine. And I'm a strongly visual person.

[Roynish]

This is slightly off the topic but I find it curious that Donaldson states he does not think in images but words. Surely the two are inseparable. He has created this amazing fantasy world replete with imagery and detailed descriptions. The architecture of Revelstone, the details of Sarangrave, i mean the Sunbane and its effect on the land.

And back to the use of certain clunky phrases, I would argue that his use of obscure words is perhaps one of his trademarks. There is of course a thread on this. I think we have just about covered every obscure word there is, but maybe Runes introduced a few new ones.

[Usivius]

(OK, I can't seem to make the 'quote' function work right now, so I'll just use the old method:)
"but I find it curious that Donaldson states he does not think in images but words. Surely the two are inseparable"

I use to think so too. I am first a visual person: drawing and painting are my forte. But I also write. And I use to go through the arduous process of putting words to the images in my head. And was not as successful as I wished. As SRD stated, reading is a two way street between the writer and reader. You can't predict how the reader will 'visualize' what you are writing. The use of words it so important and is usually most effectinve (in my experience) when it conveys a sense or 'feel' of what is going on, allowing the reader to colour their own picture.
It reminds me of another posting in this thread:

"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?"
I think this is a EXCELLENT point (sorry, can't recall who posted it ). By not giving an exact material or visual description of the sky, it allows the reader to get a 'feel' for it because of the emotion the words illicit. The language of these TC chronicles are poetic, not literal prose. And there is where the beauty lies.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I think in words more clearly than images too, most of the time. It's a worldview sort of thing. Actually, I think words are more natural than images, and images come later... but maybe that's just me...

[Usivius]

... well I absolutely envy anyone who can think/write in that manner, Jemcheeta... I can't 'fault' my strong inner visualization process, but I find it hinders my ability to write. I have been making strides to improve this through reading and studying SRD's style and 'reading' the dictionary..

[W.B.]

This is slightly off the topic but I find it curious that Donaldson states he does not think in images but words. Surely the two are inseparable. He has created this amazing fantasy world replete with imagery and detailed descriptions. The architecture of Revelstone, the details of Sarangrave, i mean the Sunbane and its effect on the land.

I wouldn't disagree that words are inseparable from images, because after all, words describe things in the real world, and we humans percieve the real world as images (as distinct from, say, I'd imagine a dog would have more of a scentscape). But, as a reader who very rarely pictures a scene in my head, I understand the concept of thinking in words and not images. On the very rare occasions I write things I am fairly detailed in description, but I don't picture what I am describing. I know some people "watch" books as they read them with very specific mental pictures, but something about my brain isn't inclined to do this. If I think about it and concentrate (and go very slowly) I can picture a book's events movie-like in my head, but normally I'll get a few representative "stills" in a few places and otherwise, it's all just words to me.

I think we have just about covered every obscure word there is, but maybe Runes introduced a few new ones.

As I recall there were a few, but not many. Seeing some of the O.W.'s (obscure words) was fun, since I hadn't seen them in books since, well, when I'd last read a Donaldson book.

And, totally off-topic: I find crosswords often use Donaldson words. Go fig!

[Nerdanel]

On the differences between Tolkien and SRD, Tolkien consciously avoided French-derived and latinate words while those are among SRD's favorites. Tolkien would never have called something a revenant but a wight or wraith (if this was the applicable definition) or used one of his made-up languages.

This is a huge stylistic gap. Tolkien tried to evoke the feel of an imaginary past world and SRD an imaginary contemporary world. What I really miss in SRD's use of language compared to Tolkien's is how in Tolkien all the foreign words are a part of a coherent system. In SRD I get the feeling that whatever magic translates the language of the Land to English occasionally leaves the names and the difficult words alone and occasionally changes them to Earth languages like Hindi that none of the characters understand. It makes little sense.

[Zarathustra]

Nerdanel, you make some excellent points. However, it doesn't bother me so much that SRD uses words like samadhi, etc. Tolkien is working off a model of correspondance between histories and cultures, trying to match up his mythical world with analogous examples in our world. Basically, he is trying to legitimately, consistantly turn Westron into English as if the languages and cultures in Middle Earth actually existed. But Donaldson is not doing this at all. He is not world builing, but rather story building. While I appreciate the time Tolkien put into his work to make it authentic from a linguistic standpoint, I much rather prefer Donaldson's effort in making his story authentic from a character and narrative perspective. Much of Tolkien's effort goes unnoticed, unless you are yourself a philologist. It's almost as if Tolkien took his work too seriously on a purely mechanical level, as if his tales really were a historical mythology developed over centuries by an entire culture, rather than one invented by a single man for the sole purpose of producing the illusion of historical development. [Tolkien has said that it was his purpose to produce a mythology for England, since England's mythology was lost due to invaders.]

I much rather prefer that words like "samadhi" are intended to convey a thematic point (namely, that ravers see themselves as "enlightened") rather than adhering to an apparent linguistic/cultural/historical authencity.

[The Somberlain]

I much rather prefer that words like "samadhi" are intended to convey a thematic point (namely, that ravers see themselves as "enlightened") rather than adhering to an apparent linguistic/cultural/historical authencity.

Not to mention that there's always the Land Is A Dream idea... so if the whole thing is really made up by Covenant's subconscious, it may well take names of concept/places on Earth.

But I like the thematic implication. The second part of each Raver's name, as you probably know, is a far more sinister one (Sheol is a Hebrew term for the land of the dead, Herem seems to be a Hebrew concept of extreme Genocide - "Kill everything that breathes" - and Jehannum is the Islamic hell). So on the one hand they consider themselves enlightened, but on the other, they're bloodthirsty beings of Corruption

[Nerdanel]

I'm certainly no linguist. I studied more than one language at school, but that's pretty much it. It's just that you tend to notice things that are off, subconsciously or otheriwise. This gets more pronounced with longer works with more data points.

On the other hand, I wonder how many people who read the books know what samadhi means or even realize it's a real-world word. I certainly didn't before I bumbed into the explanation of the word on a SRD website.

I think using real-world words could be a good idea, but there really should be some sort of pattern to it.

[Zarathustra]

It's just that you tend to notice things that are off, subconsciously or otheriwise. This gets more pronounced with longer works with more data points.

Things that bug me are the obvious word plays like, "Ridjeck Thome," (reject home, or "home of the rejected," as in: TC). I like better, "Foul's Creche," which sounds like a made up name until you look it up and find that "creche" is a nursury or playground, so that Foul's Creche is both where despite was born and where it is growing into something larger. This fits nicely with Foul's end in TPTP where he is reversed from an old man into a baby. Covenant didn't kill Despite, but diminished it, forced it back down into the source from whence it came (his own self-despite arising from his rejection).

Perhaps you are right that less obvious word choices, like creche, work better than well-known words like samadhi.

[finn]

How wonderfully educational this board can be, I was not aware of those meanings of the raver names.

I posted an observation recently that Jeremiah's name is in effect 'Jerem' (which conceivably could be pronounced Herem?) 'iah'. An enactor of genocide?

Couple this with the general assertation that SRD does not name characters by accident and the speculation that we may see another ritual of destruction. Is this a clue to what part Jeremiah will play in these chronicles?