Kevin's Watch

burgs66 wrote:Behind the operatic prose there is a wonderful story, deep and profound, and unfortunately the difficulty of the prose kept many readers away. (So did Covenant's rape of Lena, and the fact that he needed to believe the Land was a dream so that when he woke up he could continue to survive - that drove people mad.)

I'll agree completely with all of that. However, I still don't think he could have made most of his audience wait 20 years for a sequel, no matter how much more accessible the original books were. Even Joseph Heller couldn't pull that off. (And as I've said elsewhere, the fantasy field today is so much more crowded that it would be difficult for anyone to have that kind of success after a long absence.) I think perhaps you exaggerate the increased appeal he could have had with a less rococo prose style. But we don't seem to be in disagreement on the essentials, after all.

I like the prose. One of the attractions of the First Chrons, for me.

I like the prose too. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that you would have loved the books just as much without it - although, of course, you wouldn't have known that you were missing anything.

burgs66 wrote:I like the prose too. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that you would have loved the books just as much without it - although, of course, you wouldn't have known that you were missing anything.

I don't know whether I would agree with this. While reading Runes one of the things that stuck out like a sore thumb to me was the lack of operatic prose compared to the last two Chronicles. One of the things that attracted me to The Chronicles was the style of writing. When I read it I felt the "music" of it. Donaldson can write a sentence in his operatic prose and I walk around with the images it projects in my mind for days--the words like a song you just can't get out of your mind no matter how hard you try!

I'm not saying that the story wouldn't be any good without the operatic prose. I really enjoyed Runes, but it didn't "sing" to me the way the other two Chronicles did and, therefore, I felt that something was missing. That, in turn, made it a little less enjoyable than the other Chronicles.

I know what you mean, but I wonder if that wasn't the music of the Land itself? As other people have stated, the Land was a character in the first two books and isn't in Runes (there are reasons for it not being a character).

We haven't been introduced to the elements of this story (I'm speaking of the entire series) that will sing to us yet, but I think we will, and starting soon. Donaldson has a lot planned for us.

I agree with what you're saying. I am *hopeful*. I have thought that the lack of operatic prose is a purposeful stylistic change, that due to the presence of Kevin's Dirt we are being subjected to a reduction in senses (for want of a better description) just like the characters in Runes are. I did feel there was a lot more "opera" to his writing when Linden and Liand are with the Ramen (and out of the effects of Kevin's Dirt). I will happily await the next installment (and hope that SRD is as clever as I think he is)

Now, wait a minute. I -know- that I wouldn't have liked it as much. I love the vocabulary, because it is so challenging and extensive. The vocabulary is one of the things that I use to attract my hyper intellectual friends to the series
I also know that I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much because I reread the other books before I read this one, and loved them greatly. They made the last month of my life a lot more enjoyable. And I did not like Runes as much, which was kind of quietly sad.
But it was still a good book, and I'm glad to be back in the Land.

But, if SRD reads these forums, and he can't stay out of this one, and he has any inclination to restore some of that vocabulary, here's one person that hopes he does so more in the future books

Upon the travertine catafalque, he--the cynosure of all gathered--asserevated his leal devoir with febrile puissance and hieratic orisons.

theland.antgear.com/use.html

Words that constantly require one to grab the nearest dictionary interrupt the flow of the story and should only be used if there are no clearer synonyms.

My two cents.

I certainly don't mean to invalidate your opinions or your experience, but truly, you can't know if you would have liked something less if, when reading it, it didn't contain something that you thought it should contain. I may be explaining this wrong.

Imagine that you were transported back in time, and that SRD rewrote the first two chrons so that he still maintained the operatic prose without the use of the sometimes clumsy and overused words. Imagine that you read the books. Are you absolutely certain that you wouldn't have liked them as well? Remember - and this is essential - it is possible to have operatic prose without being so overtly florid in your choice of words. I just finished rereading Heart of Darkness last night, and there were times during the narration that I thought - this is exactly, EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Conrad's prose was musical, and at the end of the book I had written down only ten words that I had to look up. He conveyed that sense of wonder and music without resorting to lofty words.

My essential point is this. SRD overestimated his need for floridity. He had wonderful characters, strong plotting, terrific action, wonderful pacing, and, of course, the enigmatic Covenant himself. I just refuse to believe that people would have unknowingly liked the Covenant series less if it had beenless florid.

skurj wrote:Upon the travertine catafalque, he--the cynosure of all gathered--asservated his leal devoir with febrile puissance and hieratic orisons.

theland.antgear.com/use.html

Words that constantly require one to grab the nearest dictionary interrupt the flow of the story and should only be used if there are no clearer synonyms.

My two cents.

Great post. I have a much longer list, but I included words that I wasn't absolutely certain of, not just ones that I flat-out didn't know.

burgs66 wrote:Some of the greatest writers of our time - most of them in fact - have produced extraordinary works of literature without causing a person to look up fifteen words every three pages. Even one of SRDs favorite authors (who uses a few words that SRD does), Joseph Conrad, tells a marvelous story without resorting to six words per paragraph that you don't understand. Look at all of the greats: Faulkner, Hemingway, Hawthorne and others - they don't make you stop every minute to look up a word.

The use of "big words" is often a sign of showing off. I firmly believe that Donaldson could have achieved his operatic style without using so many words that forced people to turn to a dictionary. The goal of writing is to produce something clean and clear, and above all uninterruptable. If you take your reader out of your story time and time again, you risk losing them entirely. And let's face it, droves of people were turned off by that style. I remember so many times that even within the space of one paragraph I was turning to a dictionary upwards of six times - and while I don't have the most advanced vocabularly in the world, it's by no means shabby.

I could not have said it better.

I see where you're coming from, but what I'm talking about is not an opratic flow. It's the use of big words. I'm not talking about the effect of the big words on the flow, which I did enjoy, I'm talking about the vocabulary itself, seperate from the opratic feel.
I missed the vocabulary in the new book, specifically in comparison with the old books.. because I just reread those books, it is clear to me that it would have effected my enjoyment of it, because it did. Just now, last week.

But I definately thank you for the respect of not invalidating my opinion. And you're right, I can't truly KNOW it, but I think I can make a fairly educated guess, based on me and what I like. Of course, I think I'm in the minority as far as that goes, I just like it when the English language is streeetched. I get a big kick out of people who use words that aren't normally taken advantage of.

JemCheeta wrote:I see where you're coming from, but what I'm talking about is not an opratic flow. It's the use of big words. I'm not talking about the effect of the big words on the flow, which I did enjoy, I'm talking about the vocabulary itself, seperate from the opratic feel.
I missed the vocabulary in the new book, specifically in comparison with the old books.. because I just reread those books, it is clear to me that it would have effected my enjoyment of it, because it did. Just now, last week.

But I definately thank you for the respect of not invalidating my opinion. And you're right, I can't truly KNOW it, but I think I can make a fairly educated guess, based on me and what I like. Of course, I think I'm in the minority as far as that goes, I just like it when the English language is streeetched. I get a big kick out of people who use words that aren't normally taken advantage of.

I agree with that, to a point. But it seems to me that SRD went over the line in the 1st and 2nd Chronicles. I stand by my comment that if SRD had employed a more readable style that he would have had more readers. I liked Runes because the style was cleaner and because there were few times where I felt the need to hunt a dictionary. It allows the characters and plot to take over, and leaves the author more in the background.Toliken stretched the language as well, but he picked his battles more than SRD did originally. I don't mind really, especially b/c Mordent's Need and Runes improved on this.

Oh, by the way, after reading about SRD's responses to the questions about the changes in vocabulary, I formally retract my request to restore the vocabulary. His writing, his choice, and also some good reasons have been given. They're not my choice, but either way I'm very glad to have a new TC book to read