I would probably agree if 'tweren't for the Last Chrons. I'd prolly agree that the 1st Chrons is definitive, inasmuch as it could've stood alone. But the 1st Chrons' thematic of Freedom only becomes full-orbed with the Last Chrons' thematic of Providence. The 1st Chrons only makes sense in terms of the Last (and of everything in between). And vice versa.Orlion wrote:The First Chronicles will probably be around for a while. The other two, not so much. That's just the way literary canon goes, any long series that is on it tend to be hanging on by a thread. People don't like to be told to read a bazillion books when they ask what classics they should read.Wosbald wrote:Thought the review was "a damn good read", sho'nuff.
Obviously, I disagree with his implicit appraisal of the whole (10 volume) arc and pessimism toward SDR's place in the literary canon, though that's probably just my tittering and flushing fanboyishness speaking. Lawdy, I got the vapors!
Of course, the full exposition of an author's thought is not always seen as relevant when considering canon (a field which often only considers the linear effect of authors' works upon subsequent history), but still, I think that one can't evaluate the significance of a work without examining the personage of the author.
It may be true that it is only the 1st Chrons which will be considered "essential and definitive" according to canon. But it may also be that it is the Last Chrons which has secured the 1st its place.