What is the central message that SRD is trying to convey?...

[Kerb]

Novels have, or should have premises, that is, some over-arching (pardon the pun!) moral to the story. The moral depends on the author's outlook, fears and hopes, of life.

As far as I see, the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is to do with coming to terms with who he is, self-esteem (not often do someone has the opportunity to be a saviour), acceptance of reality of his current existence. Also about encountering one's shadow.

Or summed up in two words: "Be True".

Oh yes, a ruddy great read!

[Zarathustra]

Giant Friend,

my take on the book is very similar to yours. I've posted one question on the GI challenging SRD about his claim that he is no polemicist (under my real name, Nathan Eddy). I realize that the story always comes first for him, but saying this is a bit misleading; SRD's stories aren't like those by other fantasy authors. Thomas Covenant's story just happens to be a journey into the existential crisis we all face as sentient beings aware of our own facticity and mortality, aware of our responsibility as free agents chosing our path through the world. It is a tale of authenticity vs denial of oneself.

Kerb is exactly right: the point can be summed up in two words, "Be true." This is a story of how people learn to confront reality in an authentic manner, to confront death, pain, loss, guilt--confront it and come to grips with it. The most important lesson TC learns is to not deny those parts of himself and his existence which are abhorrent to him [his rape of Lena, his own Despite, the fusing of venom and wild magic in the Banefire]. Linden learns a very similar lesson. She accepts her crimes, and by the end no longer denies that "evil" exists.

And this isn't something hidden, some "deeper" level of meaning which we must discover by tracing the one-to-one relationship between symbol and that which is symbolized. On the contrary, SRD makes it explicit by having Covenant confront an essentially internal (perhaps even "spiritual") problem in an external form. SRD never tries to hide the fact that Covenant is struggling to come to grips with his guilt, his mortality etc., for these things make up Covenant's entire character arc.

So, yeah, it isn't allegory. It's kind of the opposite of allegory. The "deeper" meaning IS the story, rather than running parellel beneath it, below the surface. This is why, in the GI, I said that he is writing existential fantasy, and not allegory. And as such, I believe that his adament denials of being a polemicist are misleading and perhaps disingenuous. But I do appreciate the distinction he (poorly) making.

[Loredoctor]

So, yeah, it isn't allegory. It's kind of the opposite of allegory. The "deeper" meaning IS the story, rather than running parellel beneath it, below the surface. This is why, in the GI, I said that he is writing existential fantasy, and not allegory. And as such, I believe that his adament denials of being a polemicist are misleading and perhaps disingenuous. But I do appreciate the distinction he (poorly) making.

Well said.

[Seareach]

When I read I see themes. If I see a clear-cut "message” (if I feel like I’m being preached to) I’m less likely to enjoy what I’m reading.

Tolkien has written about applicability, the idea that the reader can find their own meaning in a book, given the materials available. SRD follows this line. I think this is the right way to write books. I think books should preferably have one or more themes in that they are about, for example, friendship, but the writer should handle these matters in a way that allows the reader draw their own conclusions.

In a lot of ways I agree with you Nerdanel (and Tolkien <grin>).

I think SRD makes us “think” but does not tell us what to think. He gives us themes to work with and then we, as individuals, respond to it based on our own personal experience. Clearly SRD believes in readers drawing their own conclusion. I think this is clearly demonstrated in the GI. When someone interprets something he’s written in a way different to what he believes was his intended purpose, he very rarely says “oh well, you’re *wrong*” I think he deals with other people’s interpretations as I deal with other people’s opinions: I may not agree with what the person says but I always think “well, in the context of your life experience what you’re saying may very well be true.”

The “messages” I get from The Chronicles are very personal, but I don’t think they’re messages that SRD purposefully planted there. I think the themes in his books provide a platform for thought but not an answer (not a clear cut "message"). In 20 years time the messages I get from The Chronicles may very well be totally different (because what I get out of the books *now* is very different from what I got out of them 18 years ago).

That said, I think books can be read on different levels. Some people do read just for the sake of escapism. Those of us who find messages are often looking for them.

[Loredoctor]

Excellent post, Seareach!

[Matthias]

so...in a sense there are meanings and at the same time there aren't meanings to his works. while writing, SRD made the meanings and themes applicable to himself.

it's like working with clay. You take the clay, enjoy it, and make it out to whatever you want it to be, but in the end it's still just clay. SRD is, in a sense, sharing that "clay" with us.

just thought i'd put it into simplified imagery with regards to the "meaning" of the 1'st and 2'nd chrons.

[srtrout]

This topic could take up an entire new category for this site, as could the
"meaning" of SRD's other books.

1. SRD has written extensively on his website about his style of primarily addressing characters and developing them, rather than starting with a message and trying to get that across.

2. Despite that, he is still a victim, as are all of us, of his "nature and nurture". Thus, there certainly are ideals he wants to portray, and some that he finds abhorrent. We would certainly be surprised to find him portraying a character whose main strength was only self-concern and sex appeal, or who won an ultimate victory based on subjugation of others. I believe his "nurture" was influenced, for good and for bad, by his missionary childhood, and by his struggles with relationships as an adult.
(Based only on what he has told us publicly!)

3. From reading his other works, especially "Reave the Just" and his mysteries, he seems to take great stock in characters becoming
true to their inner nature. Not to deny it, but to have integrity despite it. Covenant can't get rid of his leprosy, but has to fight despair/despite in spite of it. This is also reflected in what little has been published about SRD's personal life; he took great exception when his integrity as a writer was questioned during his divorce.

4. I also think there is a strong element of Christianity , at least Christian virtues, in this particular work of his. Covenant takes on the venom of others, takes on evil, doesn't fight evil with violence but with submission, and wins the ultimate battle by sacrificing himself. This isn't to say SRD is making a religious statement but to say that a part of his ethic is the self-sacrificial ethic that many see in Christianity.

5. It is SRD's intent that we find the meaning for ourselves. For me, it was to read these when I was having a great struggle with my work and my relationships; these books greatly helped me resist the "despair/despite" of giving up, to continue my struggle, and to continue to be faithful to my relationships(family and friends) and career.

With 20 years passing since the second trilogy was completed, one would assume a lot has changed in his outlook on life. This is both exciting and a bit scary, as his intentions for The Land and old Tom Covenant may have changed as well!

Senor trout

[Zarathustra]

srtrout, I agree with much of what you say (see my recent comments on the meaning of the end of WGW in this forum).

I especially liked:

[SRD] seems to take great stock in characters becoming
true to their inner nature. Not to deny it, but to have integrity despite it.

and:

It is SRD's intent that we find the meaning for ourselves.

and:

Covenant takes on the venom of others, takes on evil, doesn't fight evil with violence but with submission, and wins the ultimate battle by sacrificing himself.

I think our take on this series is very similar. I think you've been reading some existentialism, huh? So has Donaldson.

[wayfriend]

3. From reading his other works, especially "Reave the Just" and his mysteries, he seems to take great stock in characters becoming true to their inner nature. Not to deny it, but to have integrity despite it.

This puts me in mind of some of Donaldson's own words.

I believe I've already mentioned (after answering a few score questions it becomes hard to be sure) one of my dominant goals: I want all of my significant characters to have dignity. By this I mean that I want all of them to do what they do, not to satisfy *my* requirements (such as my requirement for internal consistency), but for their own reasons: because of who they are, what has happened to them, what they know, and what they want. In other words, I want them to be as much like "real people" as possible.
(05/31/2004)

"True to their inner nature" is what Donaldson calls dignity of character.

Every weakness is a strength misapplied, and every strength is a weakness which has found its proper use. In one form or another, you’ll find such notions throughout the “Chronicles”.
(12/31/2005)

In Donaldson's eyes, characters become strong, not by changing their nature, but by learning how best to apply their nature to their situation. They "become" by being true to themselves instead of denying themselves.

[Roynish]

In a word redemption.
And I agree that novelists all have an agenda like all of us. To not read something into it is as vapid as reading too much into into it. Horrible cliches that just dumb down the whole literature experience.

We should always be wary of a novelists gaps when he or she talks personally about a work.

These books live and breathe every time we choose to open them and submit to their painful yet beautiful mastery. They become moulded to our own quirks and desires and perhaps we see painful reflections of our non-fictitious journeys.

And of course we can extract meaning, allegory or just simple plain metaphorical clout in the persona of TC and associated characters.

Any denial from am author that he just wrote a story is for me bullshit of the highest order. Its always laden with experience. Why would someone be compelled to write. King in his intro to the new Gunslinger conveiniently breaks it into two camps. I think he is deluding himself in some degrees. He defends his genre stuff as being for the reader and not himself in an almost categorical line. Silly and pretentious but understandable.
What does King think of Gravity's Rainbow. He probably thinks its pretentious drivel. I do not.

Look, take what you want from Donaldson. But this series is fantasy not as anyone knows it. Thats why so many people were reviled by TC. If he just wrote a simple bloody story we would not be here discussing the thing in 2006.

[Creator]

A cynic would say ... everything becomes less than what is was .. and that eveything dies!

[I'm NOT one, but one could certainly say that this is part of SRD's message!!]

[Xar]

A cynic would say ... everything becomes less than what is was .. and that eveything dies!

[I'm NOT one, but one could certainly say that this is part of SRD's message!!]

Well, only if you take it out of the context, of course; you might instead say that, even though everything eventually comes to an end, what matters is what stand you took in regards to it, and what lessons you learned while it still lasted. In short, whether you have used the chance you've been given to grow, or not.

Incidentally, this is the sort of question that most often comes to my mind when reading SRD's books; even as a reader, you go through such powerful abysses and heights of emotions and feelings, suffering terrible misery and experiencing the difficulties the characters meet because they're human; few other writers are capable of leading the reader to identify (or at least empathize) with the character so much. Reading books such as the Chronicles is a psychological ordeal, no matter how often you've read them; and when you get out of them, you may be drained and in need of lighter reads, but - at least in my case - there's also a feeling of, for lack of a better word, catharsis. It's as if, identifying with the characters so strongly, their eventual victory becomes your victory against the very forces they oppose (in the case of the Chronicles, obviously, despair and despite).

[Roynish]

A cynic would say ... everything becomes less than what is was .. and that eveything dies!

[I'm NOT one, but one could certainly say that this is part of SRD's message!!]

Well, only if you take it out of the context, of course; you might instead say that, even though everything eventually comes to an end, what matters is what stand you took in regards to it, and what lessons you learned while it still lasted. In short, whether you have used the chance you've been given to grow, or not.

Incidentally, this is the sort of question that most often comes to my mind when reading SRD's books; even as a reader, you go through such powerful abysses and heights of emotions and feelings, suffering terrible misery and experiencing the difficulties the characters meet because they're human; few other writers are capable of leading the reader to identify (or at least empathize) with the character so much. Reading books such as the Chronicles is a psychological ordeal, no matter how often you've read them; and when you get out of them, you may be drained and in need of lighter reads, but - at least in my case - there's also a feeling of, for lack of a better word, catharsis. It's as if, identifying with the characters so strongly, their eventual victory becomes your victory against the very forces they oppose (in the case of the Chronicles, obviously, despair and despite).

Well said. This is a tortured book. That is what reviles some and makes others acolytes. The human condition in all its glories and painful inevitable consequences. Catharsis is the word. Faulkners Light In August is incredibly painful to read but when you finish there is this beauty that cannot be denied.

[Tjol]

I dont think SRD wanted to hammer us over the head with a specific answer to any specific question. I think he more likes to bring up questions that he thinks the reader might be served in coming to an answer of.

It seems to be the case with the short stories, TC and Mordant's Need... I havent read his science fiction stories yet though. My impression is that SRD likes creating complex situations and letting the reader work them out.

[hierachy]

I can't understand the people who don't want a book to have a message. The 'message' of a story is that of the author's philosophical beliefs (most commonly in terms of morality).

Every story worth telling has a message, otherwise you would just end up with a series of events that although may be directed in a coherent plot, will bear absolutely no power or significance as there will be no meaning behid them.

Whether the message is explicit or implicit, however, is a different matter entirely.

[I'm Murrin]

You don't believe a book can be meaningful unless it has a message? Would you never read a book for the beauty of its language, the words themselves? A book is not just a story, it is an experience. A story can be told just for the journey from beginning to end, without an overrunning meaning behind it.

[Tjol]

I can't understand the people who don't want a book to have a message. The 'message' of a story is that of the author's philosophical beliefs (most commonly in terms of morality).

Every story worth telling has a message, otherwise you would just end up with a series of events that although may be directed in a coherent plot, will bear absolutely no power or significance as there will be no meaning behid them.

Whether the message is explicit or implicit, however, is a different matter entirely.

The power and signifigance of the TC stories the Mordant's Need stories, the short stories comes from the characters and the situations they find themselves in. The meaning for them comes from my identifying with moments of different character's experiences.

Hile Troy's suffering from the losses of his soldiers in horrific numbers, and knowing that to save any of them he will have to lose even more along the way... his failure in the face of the Scirrocco, and immediately seeing the consequence of his failure in character... his sacrafice to Caer Caerval (did I get the name right?). It's all very moving and potent and memorable, but it didn't really tell me how I should live my life. I instead judge him to be a hero based on my own impression of Hile Troy's actions. Others may read the same events and take him for a fool. SRD hasn't told us which way we are supposed to assess Hile Troy, he's just created a Hile Troy of enough depth and in the face of potent enough circumstances that we are moved by his actions and their consequnces one way or another.

And Hile's just one example. Even the minor players in the stories are of similar substance.

I don't mind the book having a message, but I don't need to believe that SRD intended the specific message that I took from the first two trilogies. For example, Lord Mhoram's discovery of the ritual of desecration... that pacifism alone is not enough to defend from violence, if you can put everyone's eye out and keep your own, the whole world will be just as blind. Love can be just as passionate as violence, and can be just as powerful, if we're not afraid to let it be that.

But that's my values applying themselves to the story, that's not the story trying to write values upon me, is it?

[hierachy]

Murrin, no matter how well written a story is technically, if it has no meaning I might as well be reading the dictionary.

Tjol, what happens to Hile Troy does have a meaning, it is just implicit. If you felt that the events involving him were powerful, then ask yourself why were they powerful. More to the point, SRD would not have written them unless he believed they were interesting enough to go into his story, why did he believe they were interesting? Once you discover why he believed the events were good enough to put into his story, you will understand more about his world view and beliefs... the implicit message behind the events of Hile Troy.

[Avatar]

I don't think that a story has to convery any message beyond the tale itself. Sure, many of them do have implicit or explicit messages, but I'm not convinced that they necessarily add to the story.

I don't pore through fiction looking for underlying messages. First and foremost, I look for a great story, well told.

I certainly don't need my stoies to have morals or hidden meaning, and on the whole, I think that people tend to read too deeply into stories as it is.

The meaning that it generates within yourself is purely subjective, and not necessarily at all what the author intended. And that's the way I like it.

Tolkein denied to his dying day that LotR was a metaphor for Hitler/WWII etc. As the author, I think he would know.

If the author chooses to put a message in, or if he does it unconsioucly, is up to him. Just like the message we actually perceive is up to us.

--A

[Tulizar]

I'd say that meaning is there, message is not.

I think meaning is necessary to any novel. It's simply there. If you're telling a story--a series of related events-- then there's usually a cause and effect connection from one action to the next. These events and connections have meaning. The meaning of these events can be emphasized to convey a message, or they can be so mundane that there is no message at all--simply a good story. The meaning is understood.

As to an underlying message in TCTC, I don't know about that. I suppose you could find messages in the story.

I think SRD does an excellent job with the many themes (love, redemption, revenge, hubris and so on) and intense characterization, to create an incredible story. Great narration, plot and characters. To me, it's all about the themes and characters.