A spoiler heavy review of AATE

[Seareach]

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."

Well said, Orlion.

[native]

Sorry, unless you're in high school that was horrible.

I told you Tolkien wouldn't approve

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.

Well they would have given it to me anyway as I'm a journalist (not an arts one I should hastily add.) But I said I would because I don't like something for nothing. And because I enjoy doing it.

[native]

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."

I think that's fair. But if I were so minded to be defensive I could equally complain 'how dare he assume anything about me personally from my enjoyment of particular themes of the story.' I might even mean it. But it wouldn't be honest.

[native]

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.

Like I said, the previous marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only in response to the suggestion we know nothing about Stephen Donaldson.

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.

My review is based on how I found the book and nothing else. The book could have been written by a space alien without detracting from my point - that the book has a thematic message about gender and family which supercedes the plot. What you call quipping I would call valid points about the tone and thematic direction of the book, all of which is the author's personal responsibility.

'In which case why mention personal life?' I hear you ask. Because it's possible that the author shouldn't necessarily be allowed to evade responsibility for the themes he is playing out by placing them inside a story. Perhaps I'm coming closer to accusing him of allegory, a kind of post-modern CS Lewis.

What suprises me is that no-one wants to even discuss these themes, or even acknowledge their possible presence. All the discussion here is about the plot, which seems to me to be akin to buying a new Mercedes and only discussing what colour it it.

[Seareach]

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.

Like I said, the previous marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only in response to the suggestion we know nothing about Stephen Donaldson.

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.

My review is based on how I found the book and nothing else. The book could have been written by a space alien without detracting from my point - that the book has a thematic message about gender and family which supercedes the plot. What you call quipping I would call valid points about the tone and thematic direction of the book, all of which is the author's personal responsibility.

'In which case why mention personal life?' I hear you ask. Because it's possible that the author shouldn't necessarily be allowed to evade responsibility for the themes he is playing out by placing them inside a story. Perhaps I'm coming closer to accusing him of allegory, a kind of post-modern CS Lewis.

What suprises me is that no-one wants to even discuss these themes, or even acknowledge their possible presence. All the discussion here is about the plot, which seems to me to be akin to buying a new Mercedes and only discussing what colour it it.

Look. Sorry. I don't buy it. If your review was, as you say, "based on how I found the book and nothing else" then it should be a review about the book, not a review that included comparing the authors real life and those events played out in the novel. Again stress: you call it metaphor and I don't see it as that. You could make your point with general statements rather than your "metaphorical" statements.

And people are probably happy to discuss the themes: I certainly would be happy to discuss it, and would say that I think the books are (in part but not wholly) about family relations, specifically about the relationship between parent and child and everything that goes with that. However, I disagree about the gender theme you mention. And, there's a whole lot more going on that just those two themes.

HOWEVER you're probably finding people aren't discussing it because a lot of the people here have a great deal of respect for SRD. Some have met him, some know him...all that jazz. So, I'm guessing your metaphors seem inappropriate. Hate the book. Love the book. I think it's fair to say the majority of people here respect the man.

[Seareach]

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.

Like I said, the previous marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only in response to the suggestion we know nothing about Stephen Donaldson.

By the way: no, it's not beside the point. And you didn't just mention it in response to people saying we know nothing about SRD. Quote you in your review:

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.

...this kinda begs the question: when posting your review/publishing it/whatever you are going to do with it, are you going to have the disclaimer about your comments about Donaldson's life being "metaphorical". I doubt it. At least, I'd hope not. A good writer shouldn't have to explain what they're doing/they're intent. So, the tone of your piece, minus your "disclaimer" at the start, gives the impression that you know what you're talking about, that what you say is based on fact.

[native]

...this kinda begs the question: when posting your review/publishing it/whatever you are going to do with it, are you going to have the disclaimer about your comments about Donaldson's life being "metaphorical". I doubt it.

Sorry that was the publishing. I only ever planned to put it up here.

[rdhopeca]

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.

Like I said, the previous marriage is beside the point. I mentioned it only in response to the suggestion we know nothing about Stephen Donaldson.

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.

My review is based on how I found the book and nothing else. The book could have been written by a space alien without detracting from my point - that the book has a thematic message about gender and family which supercedes the plot. What you call quipping I would call valid points about the tone and thematic direction of the book, all of which is the author's personal responsibility.

'In which case why mention personal life?' I hear you ask. Because it's possible that the author shouldn't necessarily be allowed to evade responsibility for the themes he is playing out by placing them inside a story. Perhaps I'm coming closer to accusing him of allegory, a kind of post-modern CS Lewis.

"Evade responsibility"? Perhaps the problem here, is that IMO, the *only* responsibility the author has is to tell the best story he can. He has no responsibility to defend, outline, clarify, etc the themes or tone. Again, the horror writer does not have to defend against accusations that someone got maimed for fun. The only thing he has to defend himself against is if his work is *bad*. And then in that case, it's still not appropriate to drag his personal life in. Even if SRD is writing allegory, it's still a *story*, not an op-ed piece or a biography.

What suprises me is that no-one wants to even discuss these themes, or even acknowledge their possible presence. All the discussion here is about the plot, which seems to me to be akin to buying a new Mercedes and only discussing what colour it it.

We're discussing themes all over the place in other threads. Start a thread on the themes somewhere else, by all means. We're just responding to your review as it stands here.

[MGF]

And then in that case, it's still not appropriate to drag his personal life in.

Actually, wondering whether the author's personal life contains clues is a pretty standard approach. You can consider it mistaken - per se or on a case by case basis. But "not appropriate" sounds like an ethical judgement to me... and I wonder whether you would apply the same respectful distance to all authors. What if Charles Manson wrote a novel?

As far as I can see, the author can make an attempt to keep his personal life confidential (and more power to him if he succeeds). But the reader's curiosity ist legitimate nevertheless. For instance, the question of whether an element in a work of fiction is totally invented, mostly copied or possibly experienced is a very valid one.

Best,

Martin

[Seareach]

As far as I can see, the author can make an attempt to keep his personal life confidential (and more power to him if he succeeds). But the reader's curiosity ist legitimate nevertheless. For instance, the question of whether an element in a work of fiction is totally invented, mostly copied or possibly experienced is a very valid one.

Yes, but we're talking about a book review here, not a dissertation.

[MGF]

As far as I can see, the author can make an attempt to keep his personal life confidential (and more power to him if he succeeds). But the reader's curiosity is legitimate nevertheless. For instance, the question of whether an element in a work of fiction is totally invented, mostly copied or possibly experienced is a very valid one.

Yes, but we're talking about a book review here, not a dissertation.

Example:

An author describes a heroin flash vividly. Presumably, you have never experienced one yourself. Would you not like to know whether he is talking about the real thing from personal experience - or simply making it up?

The question doesn't strike me as massively academic.

Best,

Martin

[Seareach]

As far as I can see, the author can make an attempt to keep his personal life confidential (and more power to him if he succeeds). But the reader's curiosity is legitimate nevertheless. For instance, the question of whether an element in a work of fiction is totally invented, mostly copied or possibly experienced is a very valid one.

Yes, but we're talking about a book review here, not a dissertation.

Example:

An author describes a heroin flash vividly. Presumably, you have never experienced one yourself. Would you not like to know whether he is talking about the real thing from personal experience - or simply making it up?

The question doesn't strike me as massively academic.

Best,

Martin

No. Not at all. I just read the book and enjoy it for what it is. I expect the author to do his/her job and convince me that what they're describing is real--that they know what they're talking about or can con me into thinking they do. That said, they need to do their research enough so that if I ever do (eg) decide to take heroin I can say "Hey, yeah, it is kinda how X described". In terms of Fantasy (where we're making stuff up) I need a and b = c to make sense to me. It's got to resonate, it has to be emotionally consistent given my experiences of the world, that kind of thing. With SRD's books in particular, and the introspection his books require of the reader, I don't think twice about whether SRD had one wife, or fifty for that matter (just as an example).

The only time I'd care about whether the author was talking about "the real thing" or making it up would be if I were interested in (for example) the correlation between creativity and the author. I don't believe book reviews are a platform for that (unless you want to be a Perez Hilton or something).

Long and the short of it, I didn't like the book review and I'm not going change my mind on that.

[Orlion]

As far as I can see, the author can make an attempt to keep his personal life confidential (and more power to him if he succeeds). But the reader's curiosity is legitimate nevertheless. For instance, the question of whether an element in a work of fiction is totally invented, mostly copied or possibly experienced is a very valid one.

Yes, but we're talking about a book review here, not a dissertation.

Example:

An author describes a heroin flash vividly. Presumably, you have never experienced one yourself. Would you not like to know whether he is talking about the real thing from personal experience - or simply making it up?

The question doesn't strike me as massively academic.

Best,

Martin

Once again, this reflects more on the reader. If you read about the heroin flash and say, "Wow, that's totally true!" It only means that you have experienced a heroin flash. An author can draw on more than just personal experience and be successful in accurately describing something. For example, Isaac Asimov never went to space, but it has been said that he described the feelings of a space walk to a "T".

[native]

It interests me that Kevin is forgiven but Elena is not. It interests me that the bane is not just female but the bitterness of every female. It interests me that Linden Avery resorts to self harm to keep herself potent, while Covenant refuses to use power and insists on retaining his leprosy to keep himself numb. It interests me that the giants are all female, except the mad one.

I could go on, but surely it's apparent by now that the gender and family issues within this book supercede the plot. It's not rational that Linden Avery would destroy the Earth to resurrect Covenant. Her unwillingness to forgive Elena was contrived by the author. SWMNBN is one gigantic piece of symbolism, hardly a fleshed out sword and sorcery monster at all. Throughout the three books so far, as soon as the thematic juices of a scene are milked, more often than not the author contrives a teleportation to the next scene.

That all being the case (in my opinion), the author has abdicated the right to hide behind the claim - reasonable in other circumstances - that his only responsibility is to tell a good story, and those are the only criteria by which he's to be judged. He's plainly doing something else here.

To put it bluntly, I think he's entered the realm of allegory. Questioning his underlying message is thus no less valid than pointing out that CS Lewis was a devout christian and that the Narnia chronicles are an extended allegory of Christianity.

So if you want to dispute the validity of this review, dispute first that with AATE the story has decisively turned into an allegorical story of gender and family.

[Orlion]

Of course it's an allegory. Every fantasy story Donaldson writes is an allegory. To Donaldson, fantasy is just the externalization of internal conflict.

That said, it's also just the externalization of the internal conflicts of the the characters. Like Linden. Linden in real life is struggling with this idea that only she can do anything effective and having to protect Joan from a crazy man, Roger, who nonetheless is connected somewhat emotionally to her through his father. Hence, the effective type folk are Giant women, the crazy giant is male, and the truly tortured is a woman because that what Joan is, who Linden was focused on before hand.

All this is just within the text. I don't have to speculate on Donaldson's upbringing, education, and so forth just yet to get this meaning.

That being said, once this happens, we can take author experience to see why he does what he does. For example, I see a few similarities in style with Ford Maddox Ford. However, this doesn't help me interpret what the story is about.

Ultimately, I like to approach the meaning in reference to the text first. With some authors, this isn't enough and you have to actually know more about him and his time to properly understand the work (Like Dante's Divine Comedy). And sometimes, an author will purposefully throw in external references as a cue for the reader to consider outside sources (Like C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia or T. S. Elliot's The Waste Land).

I guess what bothers me is not the technique of considering the author for understanding the story, it's that I feel you haven't considered what can actually be gleaned from the text first before turning to external sources. Like Joan was a traitorous bitch waaay before the Last Chronicles (and before Donaldson went through a divorce... let's not beat around the bush here). But just this combination of internal and external evidence can show that there is something else going on than a study on gender condition.

Paradoxically, the idea that Donaldson writes fantasy as an externalization of internal conflict is from an outside source, but there's hope in contradiction

[native]

Of course it's an allegory. Every fantasy story Donaldson writes is an allegory. To Donaldson, fantasy is just the externalization of internal conflict. That said, it's also just the externalization of the internal conflicts of the the characters.

You make an interesting point which I need to think about some more. But my initial reaction is that

1) There is a difference between externalization of inner conflict within a story and allegory. Allegory differs in that it refers to themes entirely external to the story, 'equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself' to quote one definition.

In previous chronicles, I've never felt Donaldson ventured into allegory, but it was a long time ago I read them and maybe I'm wrong about that.

It's all somewhat complicated by the fact that allegory refers to the real world, whereas in these books there is 'a real world' as part of the plot. But the real world that Covenant comes from is not the real world that Donaldson comes from. Or are you suggesting that this whole chronicle is an externalisation of Linden Avery's inner demons?

But 2) In any case irrespective of the above I'm sure that the allegory/externalization has never been allowed to supercede the plot before. The previous chronicles were very tightly plotted indeed. The pychological and plot payoffs were very rigourously interwoven. That's no longer the case.

[Vraith]

You're perfectly free to interpret however you want.
But what you're doing [in this case] is taking only those things that support the conclusion you're trying to make.
In every case, above, you are also ignoring who the people are and why they are that way, how they became that.
SHE is not "every woman's bitterness." She was a specific being, who became what she is by specific actions/experiences: in particular, pure betrayal by the master of all betrayals, and it's not like she can go away, she's trapped where she doesn't belong. And she's no more JUST a symbol than LF is JUST a symbol [and no less, too].
All the giants are women...well, all the Haruchai are men. If you paid attention, you'd know the giants are women for a reason: it's a breaking of gender rules, if you insist on talking in those terms...actually a double one, in your terms: the women warriors break our generalities, Longwrath breaks theirs [Giant men are usually unsuitable for the sword].
And there's nothing evil about allegory. But limiting it to only the framework you want to support just plain misses too much. If it's an allegory of family, well, the families in it are allegorical themselves...about people, relationships, ethics, beauty, pain, life, death, love, good, evil, change, choice, surrender.
Your box is too small, and the cardboard is soggy.

[native]

SHE is not "every woman's bitterness." She was a specific being, who became what she is by specific actions/experiences: in particular, pure betrayal by the master of all betrayals, and it's not like she can go away, she's trapped where she doesn't belong. And she's no more JUST a symbol than LF is JUST a symbol [and no less, too]

I fear you're mistaken about that (and a number of other things but let's not go there.) If she began as a specific being, she isn't anymore - she's exactly what I said she is. Here's just a few quotes that support such a view.

"She is the Auriference as well"

"Kastenessen's mortal lover also participates in SWMNBN"

"She ..sent him tumbling headlong towards the voracity of Diassomer Mininderain and Emereau Vrai and uncounted numbers of other betrayed women."

"She was scores or hundreds of other women. Hers was the tale of every love which had ever been used or abused and then discarded."

[Vraith]

SHE has consumed/melded with them surely. Nevertheless, she was a particular being, and different than she is now. And nevertheless, somewhere at the heart of what she is now is that particular being. Treat her as a symbol, on one level she is...but if you treat her as a static, one dimensional representation, you are making a mistake.
Because, it is also said, she was the thing and essence that makes love possible.
And "every woman's bitterness?" what about the ones who aren't bitter/betrayed? what about the ones who, even if they are, do NOT become like her?
What I'm saying is that by constraining the book/characters to fill/support your argument, you are ignoring the one thing that SRD ALWAYS does: the characters are in conflict, with themselves AND other individuals AND the environment AND absolutes AND choices.

[native]

And "every woman's bitterness?" what about the ones who aren't bitter/betrayed? what about the ones who, even if they are, do NOT become like her?

Not saying she's every woman and they're all nothing but bitter. I'm saying she is every woman's bitterness. The bitterness of every woman that's ever been bitter. And in this story, that's quite a few of them.

"Hers was the tale of every love which had ever been used or abused and then discarded."

Clearly in pedantically literal plot terms, she's not even that. But in symbolic and narrative terms that's what she is. And she was created by the author, I would suggest, for the latter reason.

What I'm saying is that by constraining the book/characters to fill/support your argument, you are ignoring the one thing that SRD ALWAYS does: the characters are in conflict, with themselves AND other individuals AND the environment AND absolutes AND choices.

I only call it as I see. Perhaps I'm being small minded. What I most want is for this book to be some kind of rerun of a book that made me happy as a boy, with all the familiar merits. Sadly for my inner fanboy, it doesn't can't and shouldn't pass that test, no matter how much I'd like to pretend otherwise. Happily it has new merits which I urge you to consider.