How bad is it?

[Zarathustra]

Lurch, no one here is complaining that the Last Chronicles aren't logical or reasonable enough. We're not saying that the plot makes no sense. Instead, we're noting how the Last Chronicles fail to move us emotionally. No, that doesn't mean that we're not "smelling" it or "tasting" it. No, that doesn't mean I'm not in touch with my humanity. My imagination is alive and fully functional. My own novel is nearly complete. I've got 238,000 words of my own invention to attest to my imagination and my grasp of my own humanity. I don't need another author or another poster on Kevin's Watch to point it out to me, or imply that I'm deficient in this area. I think my experience as a Donaldson fan for 25 years and my own experience in actually writing a novel gives me plenty of justification for voicing my opinions here without being told that I don't get it. I do understand a thing or two about how to read and write fantasy. I am perfectly qualified to say what does or does not work for me.

I find it odd how the people defending this book repeatedly resort to criticizing the readers for reading it incorrectly or misunderstanding what we're reading. There is no single, objective, correct reading of this book. I'm sure all of us realize that it's not strictly literal. We understand and appreciate that the Land is a place where the characters meet their internal struggles in an externalized conflict. We understand that it's dripping with metaphor and an attempt to show us what it means to be human. This condescention aimed at those who feel the execution is lacking has got to stop. You're going to have to come up with a better way to defend the book besides attacking the readers.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Lurch, no one here is complaining that the Last Chronicles aren't logical or reasonable enough. We're not saying that the plot makes no sense. Instead, we're noting how the Last Chronicles fail to move us emotionally. No, that doesn't mean that we're not "smelling" it or "tasting" it. No, that doesn't mean I'm not in touch with my humanity. My imagination is alive and fully functional. My own novel is nearly complete. I've got 238,000 words of my own invention to attest to my imagination and my grasp of my own humanity. I don't need another author or another poster on Kevin's Watch to point it out to me, or imply that I'm deficient in this area. I think my experience as a Donaldson fan for 25 years and my own experience in actually writing a novel gives me plenty of justification for voicing my opinions here without being told that I don't get it. I do understand a thing or two about how to read and write fantasy. I am perfectly qualified to say what does or does not work for me.

I find it odd how the people defending this book repeatedly resort to criticizing the readers for reading it incorrectly or misunderstanding what we're reading. There is no single, objective, correct reading of this book. I'm sure all of us realize that it's not strictly literal. We understand and appreciate that the Land is a place where the characters meet their internal struggles in an externalized conflict. We understand that it's dripping with metaphor and an attempt to show us what it means to be human. This condescention aimed at those who feel the execution is lacking has got to stop. You're going to have to come up with a better way to defend the book besides attacking the readers.

All I personally have asked for is understanding. To my mind, the apparent inability to understand such simple, simple points as my own indicates steadfast unwillingness on the part of others. As for AATE, I believe that in the long run the haters will create positive opinions of their own that are relevant to the book, and remove the self-imposed Dirt that prevents appreciating AATE's interweaving intricacies. I could be nothing-but negative and whiny toward it too, if I wanted to, based on this or that trivial aspect of the book I happen to dislike at the moment. But at least whenever I do criticize, I try to spice it up with some humor. Why? Because I realize that the things I dislike about it are among some of its least important aspects. Most importantly, the conceptual aspects of the book remain solid to my mind.

[aliantha]

Here's what I've found interesting about the Last Chrons "experience," if you will: Several people who hated the first couple of books, in re-reading them, have found them to be not as bad as they initially thought -- particularly in light of what happens in later volumes.

[tonyz]

Joining in:

I'm generally on the "don't like" side, for many of the same reasons stated. Obviously other people like it. But I don't understand why they like it, or what they find enjoyable.

So could you please help us to understand? It's very possible that we're missing something. What is it that you find worthwhile and wonderful here, that we're not seeing?

[Orlion]

Joining in:

I'm generally on the "don't like" side, for many of the same reasons stated. Obviously other people like it. But I don't understand why they like it, or what they find enjoyable.

So could you please help us to understand? It's very possible that we're missing something. What is it that you find worthwhile and wonderful here, that we're not seeing?

Actually, you state almost word for word what we who enjoy it feel about people who don't.

Ultimately, I think it has to do with how our expectations were formed during the three years. For example, I was extremely excited to read this book, but my build up wasn't based on anything specific like the return of Covenant, the resolution of conflicts, coming face-to-face with the Worm... you may be able to confirm this or disprove it.
Also, I loved the structure. I like things like Ford's Some Do Not or Titus Groan which uses a lot of ornate writing. Some would say this detracts from the plot, I think it enhances it. That could be another reason (I thought the chapters in Andelain helped to increase suspense and develop characterizations and tell us, as the readers, what the options were, what was at stake, and what the choices made meant).
I also liked the emotion it drew from me. For example,

Spoiler

when Elena was sacrificed to SWMNBN. Don't get me wrong, this illicited emotions of horror and outrage, but they drew them out as such... that's powerful writing.(At the same time, though, this has given me a specific expectation: That Elena be saved from her fate. If she isn't, you'll have a very unhappy Orlion in three years.)

Ultimately, when we've had time to soak this in, I think there'll be a balancing out and we'll begin to agree on more things than we do now.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Joining in:

I'm generally on the "don't like" side, for many of the same reasons stated. Obviously other people like it. But I don't understand why they like it, or what they find enjoyable.

So could you please help us to understand? It's very possible that we're missing something. What is it that you find worthwhile and wonderful here, that we're not seeing?

"Generally" on that side. You see, that indicates it's not about black and white's, liking or not-liking the book. It's either what I don't like about the book, or it's about what I do like about the book. When I weigh those alternatives, I come down slightly on the "like" side.

The majority here have focused on one of two categories:

1. concept, and
2. execution

Other possible categories, such as "structure," don't seem to be under consideration here. Or maybe some English majors here should explain whether or not "structure" is part of "execution."

I think those who appreciate concept love the book for that reason, and readily forgive any perceived flaws of execution. Those who don't appreciate concept, or who don't know what that even means, only see flaws involving execution.

[tonyz]

So what is "concept" here? I'm unfamiliar with the term in this context.

I think the main problem I have with AATE (and also with the rest of the series) is that there seems to be a missing layer here. The prose is gorgeous and often thought-provoking (though we all know that SRD occasionally errs on the side of lack of clarity through obfuscation). There also seems to be some kind of high-level theme which I'm apparently not getting up at the top "above" the story. (Is that what you mean by "concept"?)

The problem I have is that the middle seems to make no sense. The level of story, of people doing things for comprehensible reasons and making sense, just isn't there. The theme gears reach down from above and move everyone around for plot reasons, not because the characters have reasons to go places and do things that make sense on their level.

The other problem is that most of the Land-based characters don't seem to function organically. That is, they don't seem to have a society to work in; they feel like plot devices instead of living parts of an organic whole. I know what the Lords and the Council are, from back in the First Chronicles; the Masters never felt that real, and the Stonedowners and the Giants are just sort of dolls moving through the landscape without origin or purpose or definable characteristics beyond the needs of the plot at the moment.

Esmer and Anele go crazy and do stupid things for the sake of the plot rather than any inherent connectedness in their being. (There seems to be some kind of half-assed mechanic to make them do this, but it makes it impossible to empathize with them or work with them. When they do something unpredictable or unexpected we don't go "Oh sh!t!" the way we do with, say, Lord Verement's death; we just go "ho, hum, another randomness for no reason.")

I won't go into my long rant about why teleportation is a bad thing in pre-industrial fantasy novels -- just the short version. _Journey_ is a fundamental mode of knowing and being; skipping all the steps on the journey is another way of saying "I don't have to write the connections that make it all fit together and be believable. Distance doesn't matter, time and space don't matter, who cares about the places in between?" Well, we readers do. Particularly we readers of the First Chronicles.

The thing about playing with reader expectations is that you're minimizing your audience down to the sort of person who consciously knows about their own expectations and can spot the riffs being played and enjoys being played with. Everyone else just goes "Wow, that made no sense."

[thewormoftheworld'send]

So what is "concept" here?

The answer depends on which level you want to start at. General fantasy concept, for Donaldson, is the idea that the external fantasy realm reflects internal conflicts. Lord Foul is the side of Covenant that hates lepers. Other concepts appear in the present Chrons. One I have pointed out is that "From strength comes weakness; from weakness - strength." Anele is a seemingly weak character who cowers behind every bush he can find, but he does so for good reason. In the end, he turned out to be the strongest of the questors. The Haruchai show great personal confidence, but as usual it will turn out to be based on unfounded reasoning, and thus in
reality their confidence will turn out to be a weakness. Linden shows weakness of self-confidence, but it disguises great strength of character.

Lurch and Vraith have lined out other concepts for us in various posts here - ideas, which I think are related to mine, such as "question your reasoning and follow intuition" (that one has been present throughout the Last Chrons). So many of Linden's unexpected or even outrageous responses to problems have been based on utterly no previous reasoning but sudden, wild hunches that turn out right. These events have not been incidental on the part of the author, they are presented as a demonstration of those and other principles.

[Orlion]

So what is "concept" here?

In reference to what's going on... I'd say it's analogous to "purpose." The 'purpose' of the Chronicles, or its main 'concepts'. Different views on this could produce different reactions.

[tonyz]

Thanks for the explanations, but I'm afraid I'm still not particularly getting it.

Donaldson has these themes, OK. But I think he's letting the themes take over and drive everything. Which may be OK on the level of plotting, but on the level of storytelling (and my kind of reading) I think they need to emerge gradually and organically from the story, rather than stomp all over it.

What is it that you like about this? I'm trying to understand.

[lurch]

Lurch, no one here is complaining that the Last Chronicles aren't logical or reasonable enough. We're not saying that the plot makes no sense. Instead, we're noting how the Last Chronicles fail to move us emotionally. No, that doesn't mean that we're not "smelling" it or "tasting" it. No, that doesn't mean I'm not in touch with my humanity. My imagination is alive and fully functional. My own novel is nearly complete. I've got 238,000 words of my own invention to attest to my imagination and my grasp of my own humanity. I don't need another author or another poster on Kevin's Watch to point it out to me, or imply that I'm deficient in this area. I think my experience as a Donaldson fan for 25 years and my own experience in actually writing a novel gives me plenty of justification for voicing my opinions here without being told that I don't get it. I do understand a thing or two about how to read and write fantasy. I am perfectly qualified to say what does or does not work for me.

I find it odd how the people defending this book repeatedly resort to criticizing the readers for reading it incorrectly or misunderstanding what we're reading. There is no single, objective, correct reading of this book. I'm sure all of us realize that it's not strictly literal. We understand and appreciate that the Land is a place where the characters meet their internal struggles in an externalized conflict. We understand that it's dripping with metaphor and an attempt to show us what it means to be human. This condescention aimed at those who feel the execution is lacking has got to stop. You're going to have to come up with a better way to defend the book besides attacking the readers.

HA! would you just stop it Z! The poster based his critique on some points. I rebutted those points. In rebuttal I explained in depth my points, which while may appear " condescending" to you..yet your very post comes off as some struggle for superiority of the Condescending. When I read a review, a critique,, that goes beyond blunt undefined, unexplained, subjective evaluations in their negative,,maybe,,just maybe,,I'll entertain them. At least I not only point out what I find/ found..but I go further to explain How I found. These critiques in the negative haven't helped myself nor themselves in that regard.

Whats with this " we" stuff? You speakin for every negative reviewer now or the whole board? I only speak for myself. My post was in return to the Characterless Land" opinion. Give it a break guy.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Thanks for the explanations, but I'm afraid I'm still not particularly getting it.

Donaldson has these themes, OK. But I think he's letting the themes take over and drive everything. Which may be OK on the level of plotting, but on the level of storytelling (and my kind of reading) I think they need to emerge gradually and organically from the story, rather than stomp all over it.

I agree those are themes, but we on this forum have observed in the past that they often represent Christian or even Buddhist concepts. Sometimes I suppose they are concepts of Donaldson's own devising. And I don't think he's ramming them down our throats, in fact recently on the GI he denied that. His purpose is to tell a story, not to proselytize.

[aliantha]

I won't go into my long rant about why teleportation is a bad thing in pre-industrial fantasy novels...

Maybe this is the problem. Were you expecting a standard pre-industrial fantasy novel? You know, the usual hero's journey? Because SRD has proven he can do that, to himself as well as to his readers. Why would he write the same story again?

I think that a lot of people have a problem with the Last Chrons because they were hoping for the 1st Chrons Redux, or at least the 2nd Chrons Redux. More Lords, more Giants like Foamfollower and Pitchwife, more beautiful scenery, and a *lot* more Covenant.

I've seen people here complain about series that were essentially retreads of earlier series by the same author. I'm thinking specifically of the Belgariad and the Malloreon, tho I can't remember the author(s) off the top of my head. I do know that I avoided reading the Malloreon because some Watchers said it was the Belgariad Redux. Who wants to waste time reading the same plot with different character names?

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I won't go into my long rant about why teleportation is a bad thing in pre-industrial fantasy novels...

Maybe this is the problem. Were you expecting a standard pre-industrial fantasy novel? You know, the usual hero's journey? Because SRD has proven he can do that, to himself as well as to his readers. Why would he write the same story again?

I think that a lot of people have a problem with the Last Chrons because they were hoping for the 1st Chrons Redux, or at least the 2nd Chrons Redux. More Lords, more Giants like Foamfollower and Pitchwife, more beautiful scenery, and a *lot* more Covenant.

I've seen people here complain about series that were essentially retreads of earlier series by the same author. I'm thinking specifically of the Belgariad and the Malloreon, tho I can't remember the author(s) off the top of my head. I do know that I avoided reading the Malloreon because some Watchers said it was the Belgariad Redux. Who wants to waste time reading the same plot with different character names?

I don't think tonyz complaint is about retreads or the lack of same. I had the same feeling about time-travel as he does about teleportation. Not the idea that it doesn't belong in the pre-industrial realm. Even Harry Potter used time-travel (that's not to say he's from a pre-industrial world). I'm saying that "time travel" is commonly the old stand-by routine of those who have run out of ideas.

However, as I have said before, I read these novels for whatever I can appreciate in them. I may not personally like the time-travel idea, but it did lead to some very interesting scenes in the novel and many opportunities to create new posts on this forum.

And to paraphrase something Donaldson said elsewhere: "I needed time-travel more than he did." At least Donaldson makes good use of hackneyed plot devices and tropes, they are merely vehicles for him to present some very interesting stories and concepts but they are hardly the whole story or the whole truth.

[tonyz]

Thanks for the explanations, but I'm afraid I'm still not particularly getting it.

Donaldson has these themes, OK. But I think he's letting the themes take over and drive everything. Which may be OK on the level of plotting, but on the level of storytelling (and my kind of reading) I think they need to emerge gradually and organically from the story, rather than stomp all over it.

I agree those are themes, but we on this forum have observed in the past that they often represent Christian or even Buddhist concepts. Sometimes I suppose they are concepts of Donaldson's own devising. And I don't think he's ramming them down our throats, in fact recently on the GI he denied that. His purpose is to tell a story, not to proselytize.

I'm not saying anything about proselytization here. I'm saying that Donaldson is sacrificing the believability and plausibility of the story elements I enjoy (the people, the plot, the world) to hammer his themes home... and that that makes them less interesting and less enjoyable to me. I prefer my themes to emerge more naturally from the rest of the world.

The time-travel element: meh. I thought his handling of it was interesting, and meeting Berek was interesting, but I don't know that I particularly enjoyed the use he made of it. Donaldson is very skillful in many respects, but it felt like he was being clumsy here. The thing with time-travel (and teleportation) is that they break causation; they are inherently dangerous plot devices because it is so easy for the reader to lose connection and coherency across the jumps. If the whole point is to go into the past and not change anything, then why go at all?

Again, maybe I'm just not seeing what he's trying to do. Or maybe I am and he's just going somewhere I don't enjoy and have no interest in... and I'd hate to have that happen after six books that I quite liked and three more that I've been putting up with hoping to get a payoff that's worthwhile. It's very, very frustrating.

Do I want Donaldson to do just a bunch of the same old over and over again? No. But I would like characters and situations that are at least as interesting and engaging as the previous ones, set in a matrix that makes sense. (Roger Covenant, for instance, was excellently drawn in the Prologue to Runes, but ever since then he's been far less interesting than, say, Hile Troy or the Kemper.)

[Atrium]

I'm not saying anything about proselytization here. I'm saying that Donaldson is sacrificing the believability and plausibility of the story elements I enjoy (the people, the plot, the world) to hammer his themes home... and that that makes them less interesting and less enjoyable to me. I prefer my themes to emerge more naturally from the rest of the world.

Exactly! Justifying a halfbaked story because it revolves around high and lofty "themes" and "concepts" is clutching at straws. The earlier chronicles have been captivating reads, beautifully executed, very colourful and effective at suspending disbelief, and also on another level had something interesting to say about human nature. The earlier themes did not get in the way of effective and captivating story telling. Rather it added to it. I dont think this is the case with the last chronicles, where the author has sacrificed a lot of story believability and colour in favour of hammering home theme and pshycological introspection.

I think that a lot of people have a problem with the Last Chrons because they were hoping for the 1st Chrons Redux, or at least the 2nd Chrons Redux. More Lords, more Giants like Foamfollower and Pitchwife, more beautiful scenery, and a *lot* more Covenant.

Or maybe we just wanted a read that didnt feel like a school book chore to get through?

Again; why assume things about why some of us didnt like the book(s) that really doesnt focus on the criticism brought forth here? I wouldnt at all like an empty regurgitation of earlier chronicles. But the story could have evolved in many different directions from WGW. I just happen to think that the way its been going the last 3 books fail to please me on various levels.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Thanks for the explanations, but I'm afraid I'm still not particularly getting it.

Donaldson has these themes, OK. But I think he's letting the themes take over and drive everything. Which may be OK on the level of plotting, but on the level of storytelling (and my kind of reading) I think they need to emerge gradually and organically from the story, rather than stomp all over it.

I agree those are themes, but we on this forum have observed in the past that they often represent Christian or even Buddhist concepts. Sometimes I suppose they are concepts of Donaldson's own devising. And I don't think he's ramming them down our throats, in fact recently on the GI he denied that. His purpose is to tell a story, not to proselytize.

I'm not saying anything about proselytization here. I'm saying that Donaldson is sacrificing the believability and plausibility of the story elements I enjoy (the people, the plot, the world) to hammer his themes home... and that that makes them less interesting and less enjoyable to me. I prefer my themes to emerge more naturally from the rest of the world.

Yes, that's what you said. Apparently I need a specific example of Donaldson hammering at themes, because I read AATE very carefully and didn't see anything more than Linden occasionally whining about her own inadequacies.

The time-travel element: meh. I thought his handling of it was interesting, and meeting Berek was interesting, but I don't know that I particularly enjoyed the use he made of it. Donaldson is very skillful in many respects, but it felt like he was being clumsy here. The thing with time-travel (and teleportation) is that they break causation; they are inherently dangerous plot devices because it is so easy for the reader to lose connection and coherency across the jumps. If the whole point is to go into the past and not change anything, then why go at all?

Again, maybe I'm just not seeing what he's trying to do. Or maybe I am and he's just going somewhere I don't enjoy and have no interest in... and I'd hate to have that happen after six books that I quite liked and three more that I've been putting up with hoping to get a payoff that's worthwhile. It's very, very frustrating.

That's nostalgia based. I guarantee that you went through the same thing with the other two Chrons just as the rest of us did. I realize the First Chrons wasn't as frustrating because it was all published at the same time, but still it plodded at times. I was one of the many who read TWL at the same time, and then had to wait for TOT. That wait wasn't too long, but then how long was it before WGW? Years, and years, and years, while we sat on our thumbs and waited while Donaldson hammered away at his keyboard using every index finger at his disposal at the astonishing rate of 38 keystrokes per minute. That, after reading one of the biggest let-down endings to a book in my entire life.

But then there was the payoff that made it worth the wait. I fully expect the same thing to happen this time around.

Do I want Donaldson to do just a bunch of the same old over and over again? No. But I would like characters and situations that are at least as interesting and engaging as the previous ones, set in a matrix that makes sense. (Roger Covenant, for instance, was excellently drawn in the Prologue to Runes, but ever since then he's been far less interesting than, say, Hile Troy or the Kemper.)

I think any fantasy character who utters the line "SUCK-er!" just before killing another major fantasy character has already paid his keep, even though it makes me want to see more of him.

But the main issue is entirely not with the characters, it is the lack of pay-off. The four books are intended to be four volumes of a single story. In three years we will be able to see these volumes in the context of the whole. Remember also that Donaldson writes his books "backwards," everything is driving toward a final conclusion that we have no knowledge of as yet. So in the long run we will see and appreciate how it all meshes together. Until then, it is necessary to withhold certain judgments, so when I state that Roger should have been given more air time, it is based on my not knowing where this is all going. If I knew how it all ends up, I'm sure I would understand Roger's part in all this better. But as much as I like the character, I don't think Donaldson intends to allow him to outshine the other villains. Still, I am looking forward to Roger making a big comeback in TLD, and the long-awaited appearance of his good buddy Kastenessen who is always so willing to lend him a hand.

[hue of fuzzpaws]

But the main issue is entirely not with the characters, it is the lack of pay-off. The four books are intended to be four volumes of a single story. In three years we will be able to see these volumes in the context of the whole.

I have to agree with the sentiments expressed in the above. From my own point of view, I would not dream of doing any Last Chronicles art until the last book comes out.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

But the main issue is entirely not with the characters, it is the lack of pay-off. The four books are intended to be four volumes of a single story. In three years we will be able to see these volumes in the context of the whole.

I have to agree with the sentiments expressed in the above. From my own point of view, I would not dream of doing any Last Chronicles art until the last book comes out.

Thanks, you've reminded me of what should have come next in my post. The Last Chrons are intended to tie together everything in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. As Donaldson said in an interview,

it will unify the entire saga into one vast whole, the moral equivalent of, say, a huge symphony in three (very long) movements.

The time travel sequences are very useful in that respect. So paraphrasing again, Donaldson "needed time-travel more than he did." Just as he needed a magic ring more than he did. It is not just time-travel, or teleportation, it is time-travel and teleportation A LA DONALDSON. And that is the most important thing.

[shadowbinding shoe]

About the teleportation, when Roger and the Croyel used it on Linden she said after a while that it was a crime against nature, a desecration of the Laws. That their method, like Joan's caesures was something that wasn't meant to happen. (as Tonyz said, she asserts that man is meant to walk through distances and experience time instead of jumping them)

Were the Insequent's teleportations different somehow? Maybe because they happen at a time when the Laws have been frayed to such a degree that nature didn't protest so much?

And what about the Elohim's (and Esmer's) teleportations and timetravels? How did they weigh on this issue?