Suggesting Changes to the Last Chronicles

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Your house analogy would be legitimate criticism--the builder clearly failed. The other topics you mention are also legitimate criticism--you are concerned about the lack of addressing the father/son relationship.
I was trying to address a different problem--the act of suggesting rewrites to the published novel. To carry on with the house analogy, suppose you bought a house, moved in, and then told the builder that the window in the front room should be larger, the staircase should be moved, some skylights should have been installed, or some other relatively major change that you would like to see because then the house would be what you really wanted. True, there are differences--you cannot read the novel before you have it (unless you checked it out from a library before buying it)--but to suggest changes or rewrites to it seems....I don't know...extremely arrogant to me. *shrug*

Are there things that I feel are less than stellar? Sure--did we really need an entire chapter devoted to collecting rocks? Even going back to AATE, if the Harrow can teleport like Roger and croyel could then why didn't he teleport into the Lost Deep? If the only way in was through the door, how did Roger and croyel get in there in the first place? Despite my questions, though, I am content to accept the novels as they are.

Joy is in the eye which reads, not the hand which writes. (okay, it may be there, too, but I am paraphrasing)

[aliantha]

I think peter has the right of it. For those of us who found the books in our 20s, umpty-ump years ago, there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, and both SRD and we have matured. I went to see the Monkees in concert this summer and had a good time, but I also recognized that a fair amount of my enjoyment was childhood nostalgia (I was 8 years old when the show debuted on Monday nights). I always feel a little sad for 60-year-old rockers who make a living by touring the country and singing their 40-year-old hits.

When you think about it, it's pretty amazing that *any* of us can still get anything out of words SRD wrote nearly 40 years ago. But he's not frozen in time, any more than we are. And he said all along that he wasn't going to keep writing the same story over and over. So of course the Last Chrons were always going to be different from the original books that we all loved so much. Time marches on, and all that.

[peter]

Hashi - surely by stating the things we like and dislike we are already by implication making observations about how/where we feel improvements could/should be made and indeed what those improvements should be. [ie If I say a chapter is too long am I not also saying it should be shorter at the same time. Also, the process of 'editoring' a book, film, whatever, is by it's nature an ongoing process of criticism - creative people are used to this and in the main can live with it. I have noted elsewhere how the chrons 1 & 2 are almost as much a creation of LDR as SRD. I'm probably on shaky ground here but I don't think the 'emotional investment' of artists in their work is quite all it is cracked up to be. Builders of houses do not go through life worrying about what changes are made to houses they built in the past and I don't think in the main writers/film directors spare much thought for the works they have completed or indeed loose much sleep over what is thought of them. They are too busy looking at i) the bottom line and ii) worrying about where the next commission is coming from.

As Ali notes above we certainly have to be gratefull that SRD put pen to paper at all in writing the third Chrons - and gratefull that we are still around to air our views on it. What a shame we did not have the internets around when Chrons 1 & 2 were published - how much would I have loved to see the cross-play that would have been generated had we been able to do 'this' when our first reading of LFB et al was fresh in our heads!

[lurch]

..Well..if nobody is wrong...then neither is the author and his work.

[Orlion]

Let me ask you how you would enjoy your breakfast if you took it in this streer. Suppose the phonograph so perfected as to be able to give you an entire opera,---singing, orchestration, and all; do you think you would get much pleasure out of it if you turned it on at your office during business hours? Do you really care for a serenade by Schubert when you hear it fiddled by an untimely Italian on a morning ferryboat? Are you always cocked and primed for enjoyment? Do you keep every mood on tap, ready to any demand?...The stuff will keep until you have leisure to put yourself into the frame of mind appropriate to the sentiment of the piece...An author has rights which the reader is bound to respect...I have a right to expect that if you read me at all you will give me a chance; that you will make yourself accessible to the emotion that I try to inspire.

In other words, if your in a mood for a story about a struggling relationship between a father and a son, then find and read such a story. If you read the LCs expecting the First Chronicles, stop, and Read the First Chronicles instead!

A person critiquing a sushi restaurant because what they had was not a medium rare steak served in a garlic butter sauce with a side of mashed potatoes not only misses the point, he is wasting his time and shouldn't be surprised when no one takes him seriously.

So you're not in the mood for the Last Chronicles, or it's not your cup of tea, or it doesn't satisfy your "refined" tastes. The solution is not to moan how it should have been different, but to leave that bad taste in your mouth behind you and move on. You want steak? Go out and eat steak! But don't tell everyone enjoying their meal in a sushi restaurant that their blue tuna roll would be a lot better if you replaced the rice with coleslaw and use beef instead of fish.

[Savor Dam]

While the GoodPost button is not available in this forum (Why?!?!?!?!?), I agree entirely with Orlion. TLD surely is not what each reader expected! I speed-read it in July (courtesy of "The Siblinghood of the Traveling ARC") and had a mixed reaction, but I am now re-reading an official copy at a more measured pace...and have a greater appreciation of the wisdom of Menolly, Wayfriend, Aliantha,Lucy, Frostheart, and other luminaries of the Watch who are avoiding this forum because of the overwhelmingly negative tone.

Yes, I started a positive thread here some time ago...and it garnered more posts than I might have assumed it would. What it did not do was reduce the level of vitrol elsewhere in this forum. We've devolved into not only picking the LCs apart and criticizing SRD's structure and story...but now lashing out at his personal readers (whom he does not necessarily heed!) as having not served him or the fanbase well.

Those who doubted the LCs for the last decade have heard me often say "Trust SRD." I freely admit that TLD was not entirely what I expected. Those who simplify this into a dicotomy between brown-nosed fans and more-discerning readers oversimplify and disrespect both SRD and the rest of the readership.

At the same time, those who reject any criticism are not making things better. No work of literature is perfect. Blind adoration and/or dogged defence don't advance the discussion.

As I have said before in other venues, aliantha said it best:

...there's nothing wrong with criticism. But there's a right way to criticize a work of literature -- and what I was seeing wasn't it. To me, it felt like the Tank mentality had bled out into an SRD forum. So I haven't been back.

We can do better. Make it so.

[Iolanthe]

Two good posts. I can't better what has already been seed by SD and Orlion. I felt exactly like Aliantha when I read the early posts criticising TLD.

I look forward to the dissections and some constructive arguments.

One thing that has annoyed me throughout TLC is "pajamas" instead of "pyjamas". I cringe every time I read it. We need an English version.

[peter]

But can discussion only be carried on by those who liked the third Chrons or TLD - are we who did not to have no say? Is there suddenly no place for us on the Watch?

[Orlion]

But can discussion only be carried on by those who liked the third Chrons or TLD - are we who did not to have no say? Is there suddenly no place for us on the Watch?

There's a huge difference between saying, "I found this steak to be tough and dry" and saying "This steak should be a McChicken sandwich!"

One is addressable, the other is just saying you did not care for it (and how many times do you need to say that?)

[Fist and Faith]

I disagree. People have the right to discuss books in any way they want. The subject of the thread makes it clear what you'll find in the thread. If you like the book as it is, don't think it needs changes, and don't want to read the ideas for changes that others have, it - literally - takes less effort to ignore the thread than to read post after post, getting angrier with each one. I don't like to say "never", but SRD is NEVER going to go for this idea, so the premise of the thread is silly. But if people want to give their ideas of how they wish it had gone, who's to tell them they can't? Of course they can. And they can write fan-fiction, too, if they want.

[wayfriend]

I agree with Orlion's sentiments precisely. If you don't like something, you move on to something else. You don't hang around trying to convince everyone else not to like it. It's a waste of your own time, and it doesn't improve anyone else's mood.

I have a rule with my kids. 'You don't tell people what they are eating is gross and disgusting while they are eating it.' Sadly, this needed to be a rule in my house. But I think the sentiment is similar. If you care about the people around you, you don't be a blight on their experiences.

No, peter, this is not saying there is no place for you. But this is a forum for Donaldson fans. After a certain point, you're cutting across the grain, like a Yankees fan in a Red Sox forum. The Yankees fan can offer some different perspective, but if he's only there to say 'Red Sox Suck' in every thread, well ... that's not being wise.

[peter]

Running with that analogy Orlion, I still don't think the position stacks up. I can say that If on 6 previous occasions I go into Macky D's and get a Big-Mac Then I have at least some reasonable right of expectation that on the 7th occasion the Big-Mac will bear some resemblence to that which I was delivered the previous six times. If in the meantime the chef qualifies at the 'Cordon Bleu' let him move to a fine dinning restaurant [ie another place] to present his new culinary vision - what he should not do is trade upon the loyalty of Macky D lovers by presenting his new ideas dressed up in the original box. I have heard it said in these pages that the 3rd Chrons are more about SRD's 'philosophy of life' than actually about the Land and what is going on there. What care I about SRD's ideas on 'philosophy of life'! SRD is [note the 'is' here] a master story-teller and this is where he should, I think, have concentrated his efforts. To say so is not a crime and in this place more than any other we should have the freedom to express our opinions regarding the works be they good or bad. [That we have no right to be personal in our posts or offensive to other members goes without saying] To condemn the TC threads to only be participated in by those who in essence agree on the quality of the 3rd Chrons would be to emasculate the debate instead of allowing it to find it's natural level regarding subject and content which it will do of it's own volition in due course. It must be galling to 3rd Chrons lovers to have to sit and listen to the carping of those of us not so fortunate - but hey, there is no forcing anyone to read or post in any given thread and by an large the negative threads announce them selves by name at the beginning. In time the negativity will disperse of it's own volition and the debate will run on more normal lines; in the meantime there is no need to either stifle legitimate debate or indeed make pronouncements on what form the debate can or cannot take in relation to the works.

[Fist and Faith]

The problem, wf, is that these people are also Donaldson fans. I think the 1st & 2nd Chrons are as good as anything ever written, in any genre. They are a HUGE part of who I am. I can discuss them in as much detail as anybody rlse. If Matrixman was still around, he could tell us if I'm still the top poster in that forum. If not, I'm still way up there. So don't compare me with a Yankee fan in a Sox forum. It is an insulting and inaccurate analogy.

The problem is that many of us are looking around in confusion, trying to figure out what the hell happened. This thing that I love passionately... Well, I'll be polite, and say it went off its tracks, although I feel MUCH more strongly about it than that. My answer to the loss was to stop reading after the second book. I read the threads of the third, hoping for... something. Anything. I did not get it. So I don't read or post.

Others are obviously trying to work through it by saying how they would have liked to see things happen. There's nothing wrong with that. Nothing. Those who like the hook who are coming into the thread to complain about these ideas are the ones causing the problem. Just ignore the thread. Let those who want to throw out ideas throw out ideas, and all will be well.

[wayfriend]

To say so is not a crime and in this place more than any other we should have the freedom to express our opinions regarding the works be they good or bad.

peter, within moments of posting something here, because it was not negative, I got responses on the order of "how can you think that?" and "that goes against everything Donaldson says".

I think you need to reconsider whose freedom to express opinions is at issue here. Are people with bad opinions being asked not to post them? Or are people with good opinions being driven away by the tone? Is anyone asking to ban harsh criticism of the last chronicles? Or are people expressing fear that non-negative criticism cannot thrive here?

[TheFallen]

But can discussion only be carried on by those who liked the third Chrons or TLD - are we who did not to have no say? Is there suddenly no place for us on the Watch?

There's a huge difference between saying, "I found this steak to be tough and dry" and saying "This steak should be a McChicken sandwich!"

One is addressable, the other is just saying you did not care for it (and how many times do you need to say that?)

The obvious counterpoint being to say "This is my favourite restaurant but last time I was here, the chef must have had a seriously off day".

However, I think we're getting futilely hung up on analogies here and they're not particularly worthwhile or useful.

Peter's point above is interesting. Some people have experienced a less than entirely positive reaction to TLD and I cannot see why their posting here should be in any way frowned upon. If something's disappointed you, it provides a little solace in being able to a) say so, b) say why and c) find out you're not alone. I do not agree with Orlion's implied assertion that you might as well say such a thing once and once only, while others bang on interminably and multi-threadedly about the bazillion faceted ways in which the LCs are an unparalleled masterpiece.

Having said that, I do agree that, even if titled in tongue in cheek fashion (which they clearly have been), topics named things like "Rewriting the Last Chrons" are a bit unfortunately named and could be seen as unthinkingly disrespectful.

However, I don't see why some people are bemoaning the disappointment expressed by some posters. Savor Dam's kind of got this right - don't read a negatively titled thread if such negativity is going to distress you in some ways. Surely that's no big deal? Okay, I might call an active refusal to hear nothing but opinions of one colour on any given subject a little like sticking one's head in a bucket of sand, but if that's what suits you, by all means go to it. Though it remains a mystery to me why someone else's take on the Last Chrons would dramatically affect your own appreciation of the novels. One man's meat is another man's poison, no? As I've posted more than once before, surely it's "vive la difference" that makes life interesting?

Me? I'll never even begin to defend the care and attention that SRD paid to the narrative line within TLD, because to me it wasn't anywhere near sufficient to emotionally involve or engross me. Having said that, on a purely intellectual level. I'll enjoy discussing the metaphysical and/or philosophical and/or psychological points that people (including me) believe SRD to be making.

Can't see any harm in that...

*** START ADDED EDIT ***
WF, your point is also well-made. It'd be wrong and censorious for pro-LCers to quash negative comment, but it'd also be wrong for anti-LCers to do the same to positive comment - though I doubt there's anyone simplistic enough to be legitimately described as an "anti-LCer". However, when it comes to interpretation of something as nebulous as message, surely people are bound to have differing views on what it is that SRD is trying to say and it's therefore both appropriate and worthwhile for them to express their views?
*** END ADDED EDIT ***

[Zarathustra]

In other words, if your in a mood for a story about a struggling relationship between a father and a son, then find and read such a story. If you read the LCs expecting the First Chronicles, stop, and Read the First Chronicles instead!

A person critiquing a sushi restaurant because what they had was not a medium rare steak served in a garlic butter sauce with a side of mashed potatoes not only misses the point, he is wasting his time and shouldn't be surprised when no one takes him seriously.

So you're not in the mood for the Last Chronicles, or it's not your cup of tea, or it doesn't satisfy your "refined" tastes. The solution is not to moan how it should have been different, but to leave that bad taste in your mouth behind you and move on. You want steak? Go out and eat steak! But don't tell everyone enjoying their meal in a sushi restaurant that their blue tuna roll would be a lot better if you replaced the rice with coleslaw and use beef instead of fish.

But this is just another variation on the theme of "criticize readers who criticize the books." I don't understand why we see this type of response over and over from one side, but not the other.

We're not expecting steak out of a sushi restaurant. We're expecting sushi from a sushi restaurant, and then given something else. No, I don't mind if the sushi restaurant comes up with entirely new rolls unlike any it has produced before, but I still expect it to be sushi. We can argue whether or not this analogy applies to the LC, but no one here is asking for a repeat of the 1st Chronicles. The 2nd Chronicles were very much different from the 1st, but no one here is complaing about that difference. I embrace the differences between the two. So it's not difference in itself or difference in general, but the specific differences we find in the LC that bother many of us. And given that many of us are having similar reactions to exactly the same changes, it's not purely matters of personal taste, but a growing consensus concerning objective features of the story, its construction, its handling of characters, and its relation to the previous Chronicles.

There is nothing whatsoever illegitimate about our objections--as your sushi analogy would imply. You may disagree, but to attack the legitimacy of merely making our complaints, as if they're irrelevant to the book (or restaurant) itself, is an unfair rebuttal that misses the point of our complaints, as well as our legitimate right to make them. It turns a discussion of the book into a discussion of the people here, including your instructions that we should go read something else. Why are you telling us what to do? Why do you care which books we read? It seems like it shouldn't be any of your business, and certainly not your call.

peter, within moments of posting something here, because it was not negative, I got responses on the order of "how can you think that?" and "that goes against everything Donaldson says".

If you're talking about our (yours and mine) interaction, you began that interchange by first quoting me, disagreeing with me, and saying "I don't see how you could possibly think that. That wasn't in the book I read." If you don't want to debate, if you don't want your opinions to be challenged, then you confuse these intentions by quoting people and disagreeing with them. The response you got was certainly not because your opinion failed to be negative; it was a direct response to your opinion of my post.

There *is* plenty of "How can you think that?" and "That goes against what Donaldson says," going on around here. But a careful reading, honest reading of this board might reveal that the people who are doing it aren't the ones whom you think you disagree with.

If you don't like something, you move on to something else. You don't hang around trying to convince everyone else not to like it. It's a waste of your own time, and it doesn't improve anyone else's mood.

And yet more telling other people what they should or should not be doing. Maybe what you describe here is what *you* do, and if so, that's fine. You are free to do as you want. But I don't understand this tendency to speak for others here. We can speak for ourselves. Just because we find negative things to say doesn't mean we don't like the LC, or don't like parts of them. That's a rather simplistic characterization of others here (again: criticism directed at people, not the text). Whether or not I'm wasting my time is my own business. However, you and I know it's a very easy matter to go back and check the record. I know for a fact that I can find many negative things you've said about the LC over the years. You've even started entire threads about "no sex in SRD's violence." You've shared many of our complaints. We've found common ground in those areas. So why is there a different attitude when others do it? I guess if you're one of the "lumenaries," it's different?

The arrogance of some people telling others how they should criticize this book is much uglier than any of the criticisms of the book I've seen. At least our criticisms are directed at the text, and not each other. We're not required here to care about the others around us. That's not necessary for a discussion of a book. But it is clear that some have an implicit moral code they'd like to guilt-trip others into obeying, or at least criticize them as people for not participating in this implicit moral code. I don't understand why we have to worry about someone else's feelings when we express our own. There's no need for anyone here to take another person's opinions personally, when those opinions have absolutely nothing to do with the person reading the post.

I don't come to the Watch to have others tell me what moral code I should have while I'm expressing my opinion of a book. As long as we're not violating the rules of conduct set out when we sign up, no one here has any right to judge another on a moral basis merely because they don't personally care for or agree with the content of their post. What one person considers a "blight" may be brilliant insight to another. If we don't give everyone the freedom to have whatever opinion they want, then we're just enforing one particular person's or group's definition of "blight."

There are two things happening here: there is one group of people who have negative opinions of the book, and no opinion whatsoever of the other group. And then there's a group of people who have positive opoinion of the book, as well as negative opinions of the other group. If we could all mind our own business, and just keep the discussions to the text, we'd all get along fine. But the other group refuses to refrain from judging us on the basis of our opinions, and let's us know in many ways how our opinion is illegitimate--not merely incorrect or inaccurate or otherwise in disagreement, but illegitimate as an act of criticism itself. But that's not your call. And it's attitudes like this that are 100% responsible for the sense of personal confrontation here. Making it personal tends to do that. Telling others what to read and how to conduct themselves tends to do that. We could just talk about the book.

[Frostheart Grueburn]

Here's what boardmembers might do instead of fighting with one another:

* Claim a chapter to dissect. Only four people have volunteered so far, and that's scarcely enough to cover the entire book.
* Write some fanfiction of the plotholes you'd prefer to see filled. Or origin stories, whatever. I'd like to read some romance steamy enough to turn a square kilometer of desert humid.
* Contribute something silly to the new wiki, only a single watcher has participated so far. Plenty of topics remain; keep it "relatively" clean. The admin tells seedy sword jokes all the time.

* Watch some ponies. My favorites are Twilight Sparkle and Rainbow Dash.

[Fist and Faith]

Excellent suggestions, Frosty.

[Zarathustra]

There are many threads here that discuss the book with a neutral tone, neither praise nor criticism, but merely analysis. I offer up my thread about Law and my thread about Despite and Entropy as examples. I've enjoyed discussing the themes of this book, without any reference to its quality.* It's not impossible to have a discussion on that level at all. People only need to start threads that do this, or participate in the ones already created.

*[If anything, I've used some of my realizations in those threads to "make peace" with my initial disappointment, and to point out positive aspects of the book.]

[lurch]

Fascinating...The work is what it is..Its done..It is being liked and disliked all at the same time..Sounds just like what the characters experience.regret and joy , .negative and positive at the same time..I guess SRD knows more about Us than we know about his work.

Good criticism has a template to it. There is vocabulary and criteria in good criticism. This provides for the ability to counter point. But..how can anyone counter point " my personal tastes or my personal wants" without de- legitimizing the individual?..So,,please,,don't offer up personal tastes and wants as criticism and maybe one won't feel so abused or misunderstood..

I understand that there are more than a few who are trying to figure out,,understand,,grasp,,what the heck the author did in this finale to the Last Chrons and TCoTC..Thats great. That is what this web site is all about. Every one is here to Help..yes? If you are not here to Help,,raise your hand. Tell us why you are here, with no intention in helping..

I'm trying to understand the Work...not somebody else version of it.