New SRD analysis book to be published soon

[Menolly]

...debating pointing Owlie in the right direction...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane

the film was made in '41, so I hope it is out of the statute of limitations for spoilers. I personally never saw the film, but intend to.

A good story, of any kind, should never be spoilered for the non-initiated, as far as I'm concerned. But, I have been shown time and again that I am in the minority when it comes to thinking that way...

[Cail]

Oh fer cryin' out loud.....

I can't believe that anyone hasn't seen Citizen Kane at this point.

And The Simpsons spoilered it way before I did.

[I'm Murrin]

I knew the spoiler long before I'd even heard of the film. I've never seen it.

[Menolly]

*shrug*

I'm not complaining, Cail.
It's just my personal opinion.
and why I was debating telling Owlie what you were referring to.
I know most others don't agree with me
and accept that.

[Auleliel]

I haven't seen Citizen Kane, and I usually don't watch the Simpsons, so I had no idea what it was all about.
Thanks for being so considerate, Menolly. I didn't mind this particular spoiler (thanks for the link, iQ), and usually don't mind spoilers for movies (but I hate even the smallest insignificant spoilers for books, go figure).
Citizen Kane sounds like an interesting movie. Maybe I'll watch it some day.

[Vraith]

I thought it was only a middling to goodish story, though Orson was great. On the other hand, it's a milestone for film-making as an art. About 90% of the techniques used in great film making (American film, anyway) were either invented or defined in this one.

[wayfriend]

Oh yeah, I forgot to post when my book arrived the other day. I haven't had much time to read, but I'm a few pages into the introduction. Will post a review when I'm finished.

Can you send us a word yet, dlb?

Or do I need to make a joke that involves an ugly yet appropos reference to Jay?

[dlbpharmd]

Oh yeah, I forgot to post when my book arrived the other day. I haven't had much time to read, but I'm a few pages into the introduction. Will post a review when I'm finished.

Can you send us a word yet, dlb?

Or do I need to make a joke that involves an ugly yet appropos reference to Jay?

It would be entirely appropriate if you did. Sorry. I got busy and put the book down. I'll try to finish it soon and get back to you.

[Avatar]

Damn. I clicked this link thinking we were getting a review.

--A

[dlbpharmd]

UPDATE. Yes, I am reading. Sorry, I've only finished the really long introduction and chapter 1. Why so slow, you ask? Because I'm constantly scratching my head, saying to myself WTF? and going back a page or two and re-reading sections that have confused the hell out of me.

It's entirely possible that my mind isn't wired in a manner so that I can appreciate what appears to be a very scholarly literary analysis.

Will keep you posted.

[Demondime-a-dozen-spawn]

A good story, of any kind, should never be spoilered for the non-initiated, as far as I'm concerned. But, I have been shown time and again that I am in the minority when it comes to thinking that way...

Spoiler

Superman is Clark Kent. I don't know who Batman is.

[wayfriend]

I bought this book, I read this book. If anyone is interested in my opinion of this book, read on.

I would not say this book is entirely without value. But it's value is outweighed by it's detractions.

This book was a bit difficult to read because the author's thoughts are not very well organized. Sentences in a paragraph don't seem to have much to do with each other; paragraph breaks seem to be rather random. This makes the ideas that are presented rather hard to penetrate.

The errors are gross and of all varieties. Just to list some examples: the author repeatedly refers to the WarWard as "the Wayward", and the Master of Starfare's Gem as "Hollinscrave"; stonedowners and woodhelvennin are always referred to as "the rhadhamaerl people" and "the lillianrill people", as if the author does not know the other terms; at one point, the author declares that the Staff of Law was recovered by Mhoram, who destroyed it by striking the Giant Raver!

A substantial amount of the material is a synopsis of events in the story. Sometimes this is put to good use. Sometimes it unclear as to how it bears on the topic at hand. And sometimes it seems to be just filler, as it does not precede nor follow any analysis.

The author did bring to my attention several ideas I had not encountered before which shed light on Donaldson's intentions and story constructions. These are similar to the idea's in Donaldson's own Epic Fantasy in the Modern World, which the author refers to frequently, but the author builds on and expands these ideas quite satisfactorally.

All in all, I would give this book a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. There's some value to be found, but it's buried in a lot of dross; it would have been better had it been shorter and had concentrated on the main ideas that the author wished to present, and used the effort saved to improve the presentation.

[Avatar]

Thanks WF. I think errors like that are pretty damning myself. Bummer.

--A

[Orlion]

A good story, of any kind, should never be spoilered for the non-initiated, as far as I'm concerned. But, I have been shown time and again that I am in the minority when it comes to thinking that way...

Spoiler

Dr. Jekyl is Mr. Hyde!!!

Though seemingly a joke, the pop culture surrounding this story did just about ruin this book for me, since from the viewpoint of the book, this is suppose to be a kind of mystery, as a result, I've decided that if I ever have kids, they're going to have to read it before pop culture ruins it for them....

Back on topic, thanks for the informative review, Wayfriend!

[wayfriend]

UPDATE. Yes, I am reading. Sorry, I've only finished the really long introduction and chapter 1. Why so slow, you ask? Because I'm constantly scratching my head, saying to myself WTF? and going back a page or two and re-reading sections that have confused the hell out of me.

It's entirely possible that my mind isn't wired in a manner so that I can appreciate what appears to be a very scholarly literary analysis.

Came back to say ... sorry, DLB, I missed your update until just now! But I can say now, with a degree of certainty, that it's not you.

[cbarkley]

I bought this book, I read this book. If anyone is interested in my opinion of this book, read on.

I would not say this book is entirely without value. But it's value is outweighed by it's detractions.

This book was a bit difficult to read because the author's thoughts are not very well organized. Sentences in a paragraph don't seem to have much to do with each other; paragraph breaks seem to be rather random. This makes the ideas that are presented rather hard to penetrate.

The errors are gross and of all varieties. Just to list some examples: the author repeatedly refers to the WarWard as "the Wayward", and the Master of Starfare's Gem as "Hollinscrave"; stonedowners and woodhelvennin are always referred to as "the rhadhamaerl people" and "the lillianrill people", as if the author does not know the other terms; at one point, the author declares that the Staff of Law was recovered by Mhoram, who destroyed it by striking the Giant Raver!

A substantial amount of the material is a synopsis of events in the story. Sometimes this is put to good use. Sometimes it unclear as to how it bears on the topic at hand. And sometimes it seems to be just filler, as it does not precede nor follow any analysis.

The author did bring to my attention several ideas I had not encountered before which shed light on Donaldson's intentions and story constructions. These are similar to the idea's in Donaldson's own Epic Fantasy in the Modern World, which the author refers to frequently, but the author builds on and expands these ideas quite satisfactorally.

All in all, I would give this book a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. There's some value to be found, but it's buried in a lot of dross; it would have been better had it been shorter and had concentrated on the main ideas that the author wished to present, and used the effort saved to improve the presentation.

Boy is my face red. I do know Grimmand’s name is Honninscrave. And I got it wrong more than once, sometimes even on the same page that I got it right. But that hasn’t been my worst mistake. I once proofread “the text of Hamlext” at least 25 times without catching my spelling error. Of course, I more often mistakenly type Hamelt, but that one is more understandable.

So thanks for the constructive criticism. It is too bad that you didn’t pick up on the main themes of Donaldson’s that I covered, like his eye of the paradox. That had actually been the title I wanted to give the book, but the publisher didn’t think anyone would understand what I was talking about. I did spend a lot of time on that concept and tied every chapter into Donaldson’s insight of the need for “the eye of stability within the core of contradictions.” I thought I had successfully argued that this one insight allowed Donaldson’s characters to embrace both the modern, ironic and the epic, heroic world views, a goal that SRD himself had said was his purpose for writing the “Chronicles.” I felt that true Covenant fans would recognize and understand the term and thus would value my analysis of Donaldson’s contributions to modern literature. Donaldson’s reflections on modern literature’s questions about the role of the artist; the way a character can be effective even after, in fact, only after accepting his/her own heart of darkness; the nature of good and evil and how to contest the unique modern ills of alienation, pollution, disease, global warming, despair; and the transformation of the hero/heroine through responsibility (the necessity of the freedom of choice)—all the issues that characterize modern life—are addressed by Donaldson and hence also by me in the book and, I hope, help explain why I think Donaldson is not just an enjoyable writer, but an important one as well to the canon of modern American writers. I did try to make the case that SRD is not just a good SF/F writer, but an important writer of modern literature. If you, I assume a typical reader, didn't understand any of my insights, perhaps I failed. I can only hope other readers are more discerning. But thanks for the 3. If is more important to get the spelling and use of italics of all Donaldson’s characters correct, next time perhaps I should worry more about that than presenting any profound insights. No, really, I will try to do both. By the way, I know sentence seven in this paragraph is a bit long and you may think obtuse, but please do notice the wonderful parallelism (role, way, nature, transformation); since I teach composition at the college level, I write for that level and assume readers who can appreciate Donaldson will not find my complexity of diction hard to penetrate.

So if you have any reflections on the ideas/themes I presented, I can see how this forum could be inlightening for me and for others. If not, then by all means send me all the typos and mistaken facts you found, and I promise I will correct them if I revise the book after all of the "Last Chronicles" comes out. You can certainly post them here and I will be appropriately embarrassed, or you can send them to me personally at cbarkley@palomar.edu. I really do believe these ideas as worth discussing and will check back from time to time (in my copious spare time) to see if anyone wants to engage with me on the content of the book.

[wayfriend]

It is too bad that you didn’t pick up on the main themes of Donaldson’s that I covered, like his eye of the paradox. [...] I felt that true Covenant fans would recognize and understand the term and thus would value my analysis of Donaldson’s contributions to modern literature.

Ms Barkley, if your face is red, you can imagine mine when the author of a book actually reads my review of it. What color is "mortification"?

I felt I had picked up and understood the themes that you put forth in your analysis fairly well. As you lay them out here in your post, that was what I found in the book, and of course much more. I was somewhat incognizant of the term "ironic mode" going in, but I think I was able to work that out based on the context.

So if I have given you the impression that anything you have written was impenetrable to a undegreed-in-literature, I would correct you on that point, at least as far as I am concerned. (On the other hand, if I have given you the impression that I have just not read your work closely, I will leave you with it with no hard feelings.)

I have been comfortable with your complexity of diction (and have been accused of over-complexity from time to time myself). However, as I stated above, I did have issues following a topic from paragraph to paragraph; it seemed somewhat undirected and undisciplined to me. To be fair, this may be a quality of literary discourse as usual that I am unfamiliar with (I am an engineer! gasp!) but which is bread and butter to those who eat and breathe this kind of stuff.

I think I speak for everyone when I say in closing that we would greatly appreciate your participation in the discussions here at Kevin's Watch.

[Avatar]

Good post WF. And I think everybody would second your closing comment.

--A

[Furls Fire]

Good post WF. And I think everybody would second your closing comment.

--A

I third it. Would be great to have you join in cbarkley!

[cbarkley]

It is too bad that you didn’t pick up on the main themes of Donaldson’s that I covered, like his eye of the paradox. [...] I felt that true Covenant fans would recognize and understand the term and thus would value my analysis of Donaldson’s contributions to modern literature.

Ms Barkley, if your face is red, you can imagine mine when the author of a book actually reads my review of it. What color is "mortification"?

I felt I had picked up and understood the themes that you put forth in your analysis fairly well. As you lay them out here in your post, that was what I found in the book, and of course much more. I was somewhat incognizant of the term "ironic mode" going in, but I think I was able to work that out based on the context.

So if I have given you the impression that anything you have written was impenetrable to a undegreed-in-literature, I would correct you on that point, at least as far as I am concerned. (On the other hand, if I have given you the impression that I have just not read your work closely, I will leave you with it with no hard feelings.)

I have been comfortable with your complexity of diction (and have been accused of over-complexity from time to time myself). However, as I stated above, I did have issues following a topic from paragraph to paragraph; it seemed somewhat undirected and undisciplined to me. To be fair, this may be a quality of literary discourse as usual that I am unfamiliar with (I am an engineer! gasp!) but which is bread and butter to those who eat and breathe this kind of stuff.

I think I speak for everyone when I say in closing that we would greatly appreciate your participation in the discussions here at Kevin's Watch.

I am glad to see that my main points are getting across. And again, I appreciate your identifying for me mistakes in facts that I have made so that I can make corrections if I revise and update the book once the "Last Chronicles" is finished. I am not really sure how to make my ideas more clear paragraph to paragraph, but I realize the material is very familiar to me since I lived this book for 7 years, after 20 years of reading and appreciating SRD's works. Again, some examples would help me. two of the four people I asked to review the book for me were not readers of SRD and did provide many constructive criticisms of areas that weren't clear. Perhaps I should have included more that were real fans of SRD.

By the way ironic mode comes from Northrup Frye's theory that literature moves through a cycle from heroic to romantic to high mimetic to low mimetic to ironic and THEN BACK TO EPIC (I explain this in a footnote, which I realize most people don't read, because it didn't really fit in the text). Most modern critics dismiss this idea now because they could see no way for the ironic world view (in which man is less effective when compared to his environment and to other men) to morph into the epic. But since this was Donaldson's goal, I tried to see how it could actually happen and came to the conclusion that his eye of the paradox view of accepting both sides of a contradiction was the pathway.

I did not assume you hadn't figured out at least some of my main points--you did say I had drawn your attention to some new ideas. I was disconcerted that you felt the factual errors, which I assure you now were just mistakes in proofreading, outweighed what I hope is a significant contribution to the discussion of WHY SRD's "Chronicles" are an important addition to modern American literature and should be given more serious consideration than dismissed as purely fantasy (read "escapist") novels.

As for contributing to the discussions here on the Board, I will certainly try to find time. I am not retired yet and teaching always takes a majority of my time. And I am of that generation that is really not used to blogs or twitter or discussion boards. I will try to read through the myriad of postings already listed here and add my two cents when warranted. I am a little daunted by the sheer number of posts. If there are specific areas you think might be most interesting to me and to which I could add significant insights, please point me in the right direction.