wayfriend wrote:The reason Covenant doesn't relate to Roger may not be deeply explored by the narrative, but there are sufficient reasons to just accept it on the face of it. Separation at birth; raised by fanatics; servant of Lord Foul; died at least once; 10,000 years passing; busy with saving the World; memory loss. Not to mention: can't talk to the guy without him trying to kill you. Thus, it looks very "explained" to me.
I don't think any of us are confused about why Thomas doesn't have a relationship with his son. That's obvious. I think a lot of us are just wondering why Roger was in the story at all, if Donaldson had no interest in exploring their relationship, or in going into the reasons they don't have one, or in using these reasons to affect TC's character arc. Roger didn't affect Thomas' story in the slightest. He seems only to have been added as a reader fake-out for Fatal Revenant. I will say this, however: the first half of Fatal Revenant is my favorite part of the LC. And the chapter where they go back in time--including the intervention by the Theomach--was the one which Donaldson chose to read as a preview (I believe Danlo posted his account years ago). So obviously, SRD thought that portion of the story was cool. He was proud enough of it to read it to others before the book was finished. And many readers thought it was awesome, too. So it's possible that SRD was so enamored with the "cool factor" of this section--and the necessity of Roger to achieve it--that he included Roger for this one effect, without any interest in further development. That's why I keep calling it a gimmick. It's a good gimmick, and with any other author I'd leave it there. But given that this is Donaldson, I just expected more ... not a hug scene (we got that in AATE ... it was aweful), but just more significance for the fact that estranged father and son were in the same tale.
It would be like Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker barely having any interaction in Star Wars, simply because Vader wasn't there in Luke's youth. Think how tragically under-utilized that story line would have been, if it was known that they were father/son, and yet nothing was made of it. You just don't do that in stories. It's inexplicably
bad story-telling.
wayfriend wrote:The problem is about whether or not it was sufficient to leave this without a deeper exploration. Or, at least, that's what the problem should be.
I think we're all qualified to speak for ourselves about what we think the problems are with the story, and don't need others to tell us what the problems "should be." No one tells you what you should like.
Donaldson choosing to not include a Thomas/Roger hug moment is not a problem with the story, that's just wishing it was a different story.
It's a problem with the story if people have problems with it.
And what's wrong with wishing for a different story? I realize that this is a comeback that Donaldson uses in the GI, but it's a rebuttal that can be used to dismiss
any criticism of
any story whatsoever. If you think 50 Shades of Gray is trash, well, you just wanted a different story. If you think Terry Brooks is a hack, well, you just wish all his books were different stories. Blaming the readers for their reactions is a pathetic rebuttal. And it's ad hominem. There's no reason to talk about readers or their wishes at all. It's odd that we have to keep mentioning this over and over.
wayfriend wrote:And "Here's why you're wrong for accepting what the author did" shouldn't even be on the table.
Agreed. That also applies to, "Here's why you're wrong for not accepting what the author did," (e.g. "you're just wishing for a different story"). It shouldn't be on the table. I DO wish for a different story. So what?? I'm not wrong for having different wishes.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.