A spoiler heavy review of AATE

Book 3 of the Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant

Moderators: dlbpharmd, High Lord Tolkien

native
Elohim
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

A spoiler heavy review of AATE

Post by native »

I promised the publishers a review in return for my ARC. Here it is. Thanks to those in the spoiler section for their suggestions on how to improve it. I would say in short that it was thematically and technically perhaps the best book Donaldson has written to date, but also suffers from a contrived plot for which it deserves some criticism.

*****

Let me say first I know nothing about Stephen Donaldson as a person, or how much of his writing comes from his imagination and how much is from his own experience, so please treat my comments about his writing as metaphorical rather than personal.

Thirty one years and many lifetimes ago, I stood beside Thomas Covenant at Foul's Creche, as he confronted one of many fantasy Dark Lords I'd watched get taken down in that period of my life for adolescent entertainment. This month, surreally for me, Thomas and I both found ourselves right back at Hotash Slay, and this time the evil to be purged is the ex-wife. Talk about growing with your audience. I don't have an ex-wife but enough of my friends do to make me feel rather middle aged to find Thomas Covenant exploring the theme. But then Covenant has always been different. I'm so glad to finally have him back.

Anyway I don't know how the author feels about his ex, but if I were to learn he had divorce issues, it wouldn't be a total shock. He really makes Joan Covenant suffer, before his leading man, all full of compassion and a magic sword, sticks her one right through the chest, and grabs back his wedding ring. I guess Mrs Donaldson took the best china in the split.

Yes I know. Totally unfair and below the belt, but there's no getting away from the thought that this book is all about women in pain. Covenant’s second ‘ex-wife’ Linden Avery's mental collapse is chronicled in excruciating detail.
Spoiler
Then Covenant ends up accidentally feeding his dead daughter to a giant monster, potterishly called 'She Who Must Not Be Named', where she faces eternal torture. The monster herself is the embodied sum total of all the anger and bitterness of all the women of the Land, plus Lord Foul's ex-wife besides. This monster is responsible for the latest blighting of the Land.

The men, by comparison, seem curiously numb and ineffective. Jeremiah drools. Covenant observes. The Humbled agonise. Liand, Anele, Esmer, the Harrow and Galt
Spoiler
all get themselves killed in curiously unimportant ways as though the author wanted to make an unexpected point, and then clear the decks for the finale.
It's lucky they have a group of female giants guarding them, otherwise they'd never have gotten even this far.

But it's Joan Covenant whom this book gravitates towards.
Spoiler
The torments of Elena and Infelice presage her suffering and that of the whole Earth (as the author might put it if he talks like he writes.) The most haunting moment of the book is where Covenant finds Joan on a beach below Foul's Creche, a beach created by some unnamed cataclysm far out at sea sucking out the tide and foreboding a Tsunami, as the Earth begins to tear itself apart. She put herself there because she yearns for death as an alternative to her worse torments. For all the women of this book, there are worse things than death that befall them. Even little Pahni is left desolate and suffering while her boyfriend gets killed. Somehow he seems to get the best of that deal.
So if you're looking for laughs, look somewhere else. Not one person in this book has the remotest grain of a smile on their faces. Not even the perennial forced jollity of the giants can raise a laugh this time round. In truth, once you start laughing, you might start laughing at the somewhat less than convincing mechanics of the plot.

To the end of avoiding that, Donaldson keeps you perpetually off balance. He's always used obscure vocabulary, but at the age of 44 I now know, as I did not aged 14, that not many know what “gemmed in gall” or “more than an eidolon” means without access to a dictionary. Donaldson must have spent many hours with Chambers and a highlighter pen to find so many hundreds of obscure words as “refulgence”, “bedizened” or “objurgation”, and that’s just one chapter.

What purpose does this curious vocabulary serve? I think at least in part it's to distract from the genre's roots in children's fairy tales, and give it a more sophisticated feel. I well remember how in the very first book, the literary effect of turning Covenant into a rapist was for me to put maximum distance between him and Bilbo Baggins. The language, and the constant use of the unexpected plot twists, achieve the same effect here, keeping the reader slightly off balance and not knowing what to expect. That drew me in so that I stopped asking questions about what was actually supposed to be going on and if it made much sense.

Donaldson further aids himself here by an adept use of a rampaging imagination. So when Covenant says "Do the unexpected"
Spoiler
Linden trades her staff and ring away to an Insequent. The Lost Deep, beautifully realised by the author, is spectacular and, although signposted properly, comes delightfully from nowhere. The mass graves of the Elohim's ancient enemies and what becomes of them are haunting.
The last page stays with you for a vey long time. Plotting aside, Donaldson is just an exceptionally good writer.

Nevertheless if you insist on judging the book at its ‘swords and sorcery’ face value, the plotting may annoy you.
Spoiler
Esmer, Anele, Liand? Is that it for them? Pretty underwhelming character arcs if so. Jeremiah and the Ranyhym are used to take the story forward without any kind of convincing narrative motive or logic or relevance to what else has passed, with Deus ex Machina efficiency.
The emotional sacrifices and the plot development are supposed to trade off each other organically, but the mechanics of the process are sometimes taken for granted or skated over. Professor Tolkien would not have approved.

The reason is a good one though. This book has strong psychological undercurrents that are much more important than the plot. If the theme of the first chronicles was that guilt is power, the theme here is that you have to accept the pain of the guilt or face impotence. It’s no co-incidence that most of the male characters are rendered ineffective by their introspective psychological conditions, while the women and the horses make the tough choices.
Spoiler
Anele is a lunatic for his own protection. Jeremiah, we learn, is vacant for the same reason. Covenant demands to keep his leprosy so that he cannot feel pain, whereas Linden ends up cutting herself in the manner of a self-abuser to ensure that she can.
Esmer’s attempts to balance his actions towards neutrality are an exploration of one way out of that dilemma which we will doubtless explore further. The Haruchai seem to be incapable of any act of imagination whatsoever. And it is almost needless to say that these psychological cripples are rendered so by their families. One wonders who got custody in the Donaldson divorce.

Only the young buck Liand is free from doubt, willing to take action, willing to risk it all.
Spoiler
And he gets his head caved in. If I were a grumpy old sod I’d say serves him right for flirting with Linden (the second wife) and making out with the cords.
One cannot help feeling that the author understands and perhaps even approves of this peculiarly male paralysis – that he feels it is the only way towards a sane answer in a mad world. If there is triumph to be had in this story it will be in the men finding answers that allow them to square the circles of their own ineffectuality.

I hope I don’t make it sound like a bad book. It isn't. I was in no mood to read a 700 page doorstep (is it really that big or does the ARC just have big type?) but once I started this one I could not stop. On the train, when I should be asleep, when I was supposed to be working – there I was flipping the pages as fast as I could. The writing was so very good that my excitement swept me along. The feeling of impending death precludes long journeys and dawdling reveries exploring the landscape. These people are on a deadline. And yet one hardly minds whether they save the Earth or not in a sense, because it’s all going to end anyway within the next 700 pages. My feeling is that saving the planet would just be too predictable at this point, and simply wouldn’t accommodate the climax of themes that have been set in motion. Donaldson is preaching resolution, acceptance and the perspective of age, not rebirth or redemption. These are after all the last chronicles.
Last edited by native on Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

That was a "review"?
Why all the spoilers?
Most reviewers can make points without giving away the story like you did.
And you spent most of the time trying to make yourself sound clever about issues that had nothing to do with the book.

Sorry, unless you're in high school that was horrible.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
native
Elohim
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

Post by native »

High Lord Tolkien wrote:That was a "review"?
Why all the spoilers?
Why not? They're all covered up and heavily flagged up.
High Lord Tolkien wrote: And you spent most of the time trying to make yourself sound clever about issues that had nothing to do with the book.
Like what?
User avatar
rdhopeca
The Master
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Post by rdhopeca »

native wrote:
High Lord Tolkien wrote:That was a "review"?
Why all the spoilers?
Why not? They're all covered up and heavily flagged up.
High Lord Tolkien wrote: And you spent most of the time trying to make yourself sound clever about issues that had nothing to do with the book.
Like what?
I personally found your reference's to SRD's personal life incongruous with an attempt at an objective review. Should we then assume that any horror novel is written by someone who likes to maim and kill?

It's a novel, not a personal history. There's no place in this review for commentary or speculation on SRD's personal opinions about divorce, etc etc.
Rob

"Progress is made. Be warned."
native
Elohim
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

Post by native »

rdhopeca wrote:It's a novel, not a personal history. There's no place in this review for commentary or speculation on SRD's personal opinions about divorce, etc etc.
There's no place for speculation on the author's personal views about gender and family relations in a book all about gender and family relations? I respectfully disagree.
User avatar
Auleliel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3984
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:51 am
Location: The Phrontistery

Post by Auleliel »

I'd stick with what you said "in short" prior to the review.
What you have as a review is really a commentary, imo. Reviews and commentaries have very different purposes and audiences.
"Persevera, per severa, per se vera." Persist through difficulties, even though it is hard.
Proud Member of THOOOTP.
Image
Buy my best friend's fantastic fantasy book! Pulse is also available here.
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

native wrote:
rdhopeca wrote:It's a novel, not a personal history. There's no place in this review for commentary or speculation on SRD's personal opinions about divorce, etc etc.
There's no place for speculation on the author's personal views about gender and family relations in a book all about gender and family relations? I respectfully disagree.
I'd submit that the book is hardly "all about gender and family relations." Focusing on the author's history as a result might lead to an incorrect interpretation. Furthermore, since there isn't really much known about SRD's personal life, it's kind of pointless. That statement turns, then, into taking a fictional work and use it to derive the author's character, not the other way around. In one word, pointless.
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
Seareach
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:25 am

Post by Seareach »

Orlion wrote:
native wrote:
rdhopeca wrote:It's a novel, not a personal history. There's no place in this review for commentary or speculation on SRD's personal opinions about divorce, etc etc.
There's no place for speculation on the author's personal views about gender and family relations in a book all about gender and family relations? I respectfully disagree.
I'd submit that the book is hardly "all about gender and family relations." Focusing on the author's history as a result might lead to an incorrect interpretation. Furthermore, since there isn't really much known about SRD's personal life, it's kind of pointless. That statement turns, then, into taking a fictional work and use it to derive the author's character, not the other way around. In one word, pointless.
What they said....
Image
native
Elohim
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

Post by native »

Orlion wrote:I'd submit that the book is hardly "all about gender and family relations."
But I think it is, therefore it's legitimate within the context of my review.
Orlion wrote: Focusing on the author's history as a result might lead to an incorrect interpretation.
Or a correct one.
Orlion wrote: Furthermore, since there isn't really much known about SRD's personal life, it's kind of pointless.
We do know he's had a previous marriage, as it happens
www.stephenrdonaldson.com/background/pu ... erella.php

But that's beside the point. I said very clearly "Let me say first I know nothing about Stephen Donaldson as a person, or how much of his writing comes from his imagination and how much is from his own experience, so please treat my comments about his writing as metaphorical rather than personal. "

The point is that there is a thinking behind what happens to these fictional characters, and that thinking belongs to the author, so it's legitimate to bring it back to him. He's responsible for those thoughts and themes and it's appropriate to question that.
User avatar
rdhopeca
The Master
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Post by rdhopeca »

native wrote:
Orlion wrote:I'd submit that the book is hardly "all about gender and family relations."
But I think it is, therefore it's legitimate within the context of my review.
Orlion wrote: Focusing on the author's history as a result might lead to an incorrect interpretation.
Or a correct one.
Orlion wrote: Furthermore, since there isn't really much known about SRD's personal life, it's kind of pointless.
We do know he's had a previous marriage, as it happens
www.stephenrdonaldson.com/background/pu ... erella.php

But that's beside the point. I said very clearly "Let me say first I know nothing about Stephen Donaldson as a person, or how much of his writing comes from his imagination and how much is from his own experience, so please treat my comments about his writing as metaphorical rather than personal. "

The point is that there is a thinking behind what happens to these fictional characters, and that thinking belongs to the author, so it's legitimate to bring it back to him. He's responsible for those thoughts and themes and it's appropriate to question that.
Which brings me back to, if this was a horror story would comments such as "obviously it wouldn't surprise me if the author stole cadavers from the local morgue to hack on for research", or "it's clear he's very experienced with sexual violence against women", would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

Sure, the author is responsible for the story, but that by no means reflects in any way on his character or his personal life, and shouldn't be intimated.

IMO, of course.
Rob

"Progress is made. Be warned."
MGF
Servant of the Land
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:18 pm

Post by MGF »

Review or commentary?

Who cares?

I found it entertaining and sometimes quite pertinent.

Thanks,

Martin
native
Elohim
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

Post by native »

rdhopeca wrote:Which brings me back to, if this was a horror story would comments such as "obviously it wouldn't surprise me if the author stole cadavers from the local morgue to hack on for research", or "it's clear he's very experienced with sexual violence against women", would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

Sure, the author is responsible for the story, but that by no means reflects in any way on his character or his personal life, and shouldn't be intimated.

IMO, of course.
I can accept the comment about personal life - at least when such comments are meant literally - but not character. I don't accuse SRD of mysogyny, but just for example suppose I did? Could he really defend himself by saying these characters and events have nothing to do with him.
native
Elohim
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

Post by native »

High Lord Tolkien wrote: Sorry, unless you're in high school that was horrible.
I told you Tolkien wouldn't approve :)
Hiro
Giantfriend
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:30 am

Post by Hiro »

Ofcourse an author of a creative work uses his own life to make something. Whether inspired by events observed, experienced, heard about, read about etc.

But how this impacts on a work is besides the point entirely.

A viewpoint could be, how far has, in this case, SRD succeeded in writing AATE in the manner he set out to do?

In other words, if a book touched you or not, does that have anything to do with an author's personal life?
native
Elohim
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:55 pm

Post by native »

Hiro wrote:In other words, if a book touched you or not, does that have anything to do with an author's personal life?
Like I said my comments were intended metaphorically, and it's below the belt if taken literally. He's not culpable for the pain of the characters by writing it any more than we are for reading it.

What he is directly responsible for are the ideas that underpin the book. And it seems to me he's clearly saying something quite specific (and not a little controversial) about gender and family in this book. And that says something about him.
User avatar
rdhopeca
The Master
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 12 times
Contact:

Post by rdhopeca »

In any event, I went and posted a question on the GI to ask SRD his opinion of the matter, to wit:
Good afternoon sir.

On the Watch, we're having a discussion about how much can be interpreted about an author's character and personal opinions based on the messages and/or themes housed within a work of fiction. In particular, if a work of fiction contains a lot of dysfunctional behavior within a love relationship (ie divorce, inability to reach out, etc etc), that one can imply that the author must have intimate knowledge of divorce et.al.

I've been insisting that one can't make any assumptions about the author's character or opinion, in the sense that if the novel is a horror novel, one can't then assume that the author enjoys killing and maiming, or spends his time down at the morgue swiping cadavers for experiments.

Realizing and respecting your privacy, I am still wondering...is it worthwhile to attempt to extrapolate things about the author based on their work?
Maybe he'll even answer :D
Rob

"Progress is made. Be warned."
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

native wrote:
High Lord Tolkien wrote: Sorry, unless you're in high school that was horrible.
I told you Tolkien wouldn't approve :)
:lol:

Don't get me wrong. The only reason I critiqued you as hard as I did was because you're issuing a review as a payment for the ARC.
So I read yours with more ....professionalism in mind.
Taking personal shots at SRD doesn't help either. :P

Maybe it's just your writing style.
Reread what you wrote.
I ?think? you like the book but it's hard to tell.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10623
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time
Been thanked: 3 times

Post by Vraith »

native wrote: What he is directly responsible for are the ideas that underpin the book. And it seems to me he's clearly saying something quite specific (and not a little controversial) about gender and family in this book. And that says something about him.
Really? Which does it say about relationships with wife/ex-wife? That they're evil and you should kill them? Or that uncontrollable things happen, everyone gets hurt, and they should understand each other?

What does it really say about gender and effect? Any number of both genders are effective and weak, rigid and flexible, arrogant and self-doubting...in many cases the same character is all of them at one point or another.

And whatever the strength's/weaknesses of the novel(s), whether you like it/them or not, every plotline, character, and idea serves a necessary purpose within the story. Unlike the vast majority of works, if you delete a characters storyline/incidents you miss something essential to the work as a whole. Or, maybe that's what you mean by "contrived." The fact that everyone matters.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Seareach
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:25 am

Post by Seareach »

rdhopeca wrote:
native wrote:
Orlion wrote:I'd submit that the book is hardly "all about gender and family relations."
But I think it is, therefore it's legitimate within the context of my review.
Orlion wrote: Focusing on the author's history as a result might lead to an incorrect interpretation.
Or a correct one.
Orlion wrote: Furthermore, since there isn't really much known about SRD's personal life, it's kind of pointless.
We do know he's had a previous marriage, as it happens
www.stephenrdonaldson.com/background/pu ... erella.php

But that's beside the point. I said very clearly "Let me say first I know nothing about Stephen Donaldson as a person, or how much of his writing comes from his imagination and how much is from his own experience, so please treat my comments about his writing as metaphorical rather than personal. "

The point is that there is a thinking behind what happens to these fictional characters, and that thinking belongs to the author, so it's legitimate to bring it back to him. He's responsible for those thoughts and themes and it's appropriate to question that.
Which brings me back to, if this was a horror story would comments such as "obviously it wouldn't surprise me if the author stole cadavers from the local morgue to hack on for research", or "it's clear he's very experienced with sexual violence against women", would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

Sure, the author is responsible for the story, but that by no means reflects in any way on his character or his personal life, and shouldn't be intimated.

IMO, of course.
So he's had a "previous marriage". That's all you know (by your own omission). I stand with those who have said that story content does not necessarily reflect the authors personal life.

That said, stories come from somewhere. That said, I'd respect your review if it was written based on fact rather than, as you essentially admit to yourself, lack of fact (at least when it comes to your "quipping"). It does nothing for your review, even if you're being metaphorical. I just see it as an attempt to be clever.

IMO
Image
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

native wrote: What he is directly responsible for are the ideas that underpin the book. And it seems to me he's clearly saying something quite specific (and not a little controversial) about gender and family in this book. And that says something about him.
In history class, my professor once said that one's interpretation of history says more about that person than about the actual history itself. I believe the same can be said about literature. What readers get out of a complicated work reflects more on the reader than on the author...well, maybe it's a fifty-fifty split. But we bring our own baggage into the reading, and it does influence our interpretation (i.e., I can probably point out people who have been very much involved with Harry Potter from some reactions to this book).

In other words, I think saying that family relations and gender roles are important to you is just as valid a statement as "I wouldn't be surprised with ex-Mrs. Donaldson took Steve's favorite pickup truck in the divorce."
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
Post Reply

Return to “Against All Things Ending”