The Story Teller

[lurch]

I'd like to take this opportunity to surface an issue I've observed with the Story Teller. I am not talking about the Author, Stephen R Donaldson , directly, but indirectly, since the Story Teller is his creation.

The Story Teller is the voice that is telling the tale. Its the perspective thru which we experience the story; the narrator. I believe in this case, the Story Teller would be referred to as the 3rd person perspective. The character, the reader, the Story Teller. The key ,,imho, is to know that the Story Teller, is the creation of the Author. And it is here, where I perceive the Author is having some fun and not above " playing around", of course, on purpose.

The Story Teller is subjective . Thats the nicest way I can put it. The fun is,,realizing the subjective Story Teller is taken to...being wrong,,being pretentious, being full of itself, and more than once, even a bit of a braggart. There is humor here that I wasn't expecting or prepared for, but maybe others can contribute on.

One example I try to examine with the unfortunate spoil of a future dissect in mine as a low cost, is,,The Story Teller repeats with certainty, the natural cause and sequence of the Sun Rise that Giants and Linden are fully anticipating. Here is my perception: The Author certainly knos there will be no Sun Rise. We, the readers, have a highly reliable assumption that there will be no Sun Rise,,,but the Narrator, the Story Teller, in its gloating over such a intimate and cozy relationship with the characters..repeats bullschitt as if its the Truth.

Yes, the author has the Story Teller remarking about shattering foundations and canting realities..but the Story Teller misses that even its imperious position has no solid ownership of reality.Here is the line, given its own paragraph: " When the sun rose, the confused tangle of who she was and who she needed to be might begin to unravel like the recursive wards which had sealed the Lost Deep."..uhh, no. Not until the epilogue, buddy! By expounding on the inner thoughts and emotions of these flawed characters, the Story Teller becomes just as susceptible to being flawed as the characters. Hows that for shifting realities?

Well heck then!!!..If even the Story Teller can be wrong, full of it, where is the Truth? All is subjective? Yes, to a degree,,,except the one thing that the author is after...You, Your feelings, they are Your Truth, not the unreliable Story Tellers. .. This is,,coming from me, you might already have guessed, quite the Surreal. Our feelings, our creativity, Our Truth defines Who We are, composes Our Humanity. Its all in how we feel, how we empathize with the characters and their Tale. The Story Tellers intimate relationships with the characters serve as example for us, rather than delivering " The Truth" to us.

[Cord Hurn]

The key ,,imho, is to know that the Story Teller, is the creation of the Author. And it is here, where I perceive the Author is having some fun and not above " playing around", of course, on purpose.

That aspect of Donaldson's writing has made for additional fun reading several of his creations. I've felt it especially strongly in his short story "Ser Visal's Tale", where the storyteller himself turns out to be a fully realized character. I've felt it even in stories where I didn't care for the plot, like "The Lady In White", because SRD was obviously having fun playing the role of the storyteller.

[lurch]

Wow! CH, its been such a loooong time since I read Daughters.., Now I'll have to find it and give it a re-read...but yea, the voice of the narrator is some thing to keep an eye on in all fiction. The more I re-read TLD the more I am floored by the antics of the Story Teller. The author is intentionally funny. The Story Teller isn't intentionally funny like a comedian. Hes funny because he is made to say in such serious manner,,then gets proved wrong or on second thought, is just over board with what he is saying. He is definitely a whole other dimension to TLD.

[Cord Hurn]

He's funny because he is made to say in such serious manner,,then gets proved wrong or on second thought, is just over board with what he is saying. He is definitely a whole other dimension to TLD.

Do you have a passage to quote as an example for this? I'm not doubting you; I just can't think of anything that fits to this at the moment.

[lurch]

asper your request CH; pg60, 2nd to last paragraph, " it was for this...etc. That paragraph strikes me as so over the top..Belushi in Animal House, ..no! did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!!?? rant? To me, its comical.

[lurch]

CH..there is also another way the narrator is being used in the sense of irony. Chapter 7 at its beginning is peppered with short remarks that are unattributed to any character so can be assigned to the narrator. But the point is, all the remarks are in the negative. So when with ability and perseverance, Linden finally succeeds, we the reader , feel her success that much more. We are being manipulated by the author by this technique. The point of it all,,is how easily we Can Be manipulated and thus be aware.

example..pg139
" Even then , she could not locate the source of Jeremiah's exultation."

" It did not look like enough."

"It was effectively inaccessible"

On a completely different observation,,since I have brought up Chapter 7 in discussion,,the question I have is; Has any one else sensed a strange or different thing about Chapter 7? Its one of those things, where by whats not there or brought up in dialogue the other becomes heavily emphasized. Perhaps its a property of the malachite?

[Cord Hurn]

asper your request CH; pg60, 2nd to last paragraph, " it was for this...etc. That paragraph strikes me as so over the top..Belushi in Animal House, ..no! did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!!?? rant? To me, its comical.

It made me smile, for it was motivational and gets to the heart of why I care about the Land. And it could be considered both a parody and fertile ground to be parodied.

It was for this that Covenant had to find and stop turiya, and then go on to the next battle and the next. Not for the lurker. Not for the Elohim, in spite of their slow inexorable decimation. Not even for Linden, although his ache for her resembled weeping. No, it was for aliantha that he had to fight: for treasure-berries, and for Wraiths, for hurtloam and Glimmermere and Salva Gildenbourne, Andelain and EarthBlood; for the Ranyhyn and their Ramen; for ur-viles and Waynhim; and for every mortal heart as valiant and treasurable as Liand's or Anele's. For their sake, he had to catch up with the Raver. He had to find a way.

[lurch]

As I re-read this book, i am willing to say with some certainty, tho not absolute, that each chapter has the narrator mis-directing, or getting it wrong on something. Having Linden and Thomas apart creates a whole dimension of "knowledge". We the reader kno more than possibly Linden or possibly Thomas at any one moment in Time. But for the narrator to be ignorant of a "fact" ,,after just telling us about it is wildly funny and is the author, having fun with the " subjective 3rd person" perspective. I refer to the advance of ,,say,Thomas'es plot line,,fully commented on by the Narrator,,and then next, in the Linden plot line,,for the narrator to be ignorant of the same..plays with Time and again..gives the reader a special perspective..At Times, We know more than the Story Teller does..and that is pretty damn neat imho..

[Cord Hurn]

I wanted to say that the "It was for this..." paragraph concerning the galvanizing of TC's purpose reminded me of a passage from my favorite chapter in the entire 10-book series, TPTP's "Lord Mhoram's Victory", where Mhoram is in a hollow surrounded by enemies.

As he grasped the utterness of his plight, he turned inward, retreated into himself as if he were fleeing. There he looked the end of all his hopes and all his Landservice in the face, and found that its scarred, terrible visage no longer appalled him. He was a fighter, a man born to fight for the Land. As long as something for which he could fight remained, he was impervious to terror. And something did remain; while he lived, at least one flame of love for the Land still burned. He could fight for that.

LOVE it! As for us knowing more than the narrative voice does: yeah, it gives us a bit of superiority complex in a fun, not disdainful, way--and it's enjoyable while it lasts.

[lurch]

Yea, that bit of superiority complex the author uses, it seems to me. An example might be, when Linden gets visited by the feroce who are delivering TC's message,,WE see her internal fears at play , guiding her decision making process. We kno the feroce are not a worry nor actually is the lurker. So we get pulled in by our knowledge and can't help but have compassion for Linden ; we understand her thought process bu t we kno its based on a reality that doesn't exist any more. Linden takes a punch to the head by Stave for that mistake.Ouch. We the readers get involved withe the contradictory feelings..We are helpless to stop from happening what we see coming, we feel sorry for Linden not knowing, and maybe a small part wants to laff at the dark humor at play here with her getting punched because she told Stave to do it if the feroce put a glamour on her. They did, but this time she understood the purpose of it and was getting the message of it when Stave clobbered her.

WE have the same kind of experience with our superiority complex as Lindens pretense about the feroce and lurker..Knowing or thinking you know what is going to happen,,isn't as great as one would think, especially if there is nothing one can do about it. We are taken in and become part of the metaphor. The unreliable narrator is one of the ways the author creates the opportunity for this to happen.