Page 89 of 103
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:42 am
by Avatar
dlbpharmd wrote:I also thought WGW was a good end to the series (and I hate Linden.) But, that doesn't mean I wasn't terribly sad to see it end.
It was an
awesome end. An ending unlike any I'd read before. An ending that kept the Chrons right up there on my list of all time best books. An ending that was like a kick in the stomach.
The 3rd Chrons has probably robbed new readers of the power of that ending...afterall, as far as we knew then, that was it. And that gave it a lot of power.
The question is, can he match that again?
--A
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 12:51 pm
by CovenantJr
Well, since I got bored of reading FR and stopped, I'm going to say no.
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:29 pm
by Cail
CovenantJr wrote:Well, since I got bored of reading FR and stopped, I'm going to say no.
I struggled all the way through FR, and I'm gonna say "no" as well. We had a perfectly good ending with WGW. We now have two more books which really don't add much of anything to the story, and (for me, at least) haven't began to touch on what made the first 6-1/2 books so good.
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:55 pm
by Demondime-a-dozen-spawn
Cail wrote:We now have two more books which really don't add much of anything to the story, and (for me, at least) haven't began to touch on what made the first 6-1/2 books so good.
6 1/2 books? I don't follow. Did I miss something?
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 2:14 pm
by Cail
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:21 am
by kevinswatch
Hate to say it, but so far I agree with Cail and Roger.-jay
Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:46 am
by iQuestor
I loved
Gilden-Fire; it added a sense of depth to both the
Haruchai and the Lords, if not actually furthering the story.
I ... didnt enjoy
Runes as much. Loved
FR but it hasn't inspried me to re-read it like the first 6 have.
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 9:33 pm
by dlbpharmd
spoonchicken: Dear Dr.Donaldson......PLEASE tell me, that you DON'T go to kevinswatch.com & read some of the sillier stuff posted in there (epsecially by me!)
Is there "sillier" stuff posted on kevinswatch.com? You shock me. How is that possible? <grin>
(05/13/2009)
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:09 pm
by Auleliel
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:15 am
by StevieG
Does Spoonchicken know he's been answered? Spoonchicken, do you know?
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:24 am
by StevieG
Hmmm:
Peter B: Hi Steve--
I ran across one of your responses to a July 2004 GI question concerning who the Creator is and was amazed at what you appear to be disclosing. Here's your quote:
"Having rid ourselves of those assumptions, we can then consider the possibility that the Land's "Creator" is Covenant himself (an act of imagination which he later shares with Linden); that--in a manner of speaking--both the "Creator" and the man in the ochre robe are Covenant's dopplegangers, externalized versions of aspects of himself."
Was this an attempt at crafty misdirection or should we take the clarification at face value? My guess (hope) is that the integrity of the Chronicles and ending remain.
Many, many congratulations on finishing the first draft of AATE!
"Crafty misdirection" or actual "clarification": are those my only choices? Can I pick both? Neither? Am I allowed to be overtly self-contradictory?
In the absence of comfortable alternatives, I'm going to avoid responsibility by insisting that the crucial words are "consider the possibility". If the Land is a dream/delusion, then OF COURSE Covenant is its Creator. But surely other possibilities also deserve consideration.
(05/13/2009)
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:36 pm
by matrixman
Yes, that is the paradox of SRD: for he is mad and sane, cold and passionate, gibbering fool and profound sage.
Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:01 pm
by wayfriend
spoonchicken: Dear Dr.Donaldson......PLEASE tell me, that you DON'T go to kevinswatch.com & read some of the sillier stuff posted in there (epsecially by me!)
Is there "sillier" stuff posted on kevinswatch.com? You shock me. How is that possible? <grin>
(05/13/2009)
You know, I think there's a comment on spoonchicken's grammar in there somewhere.
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 3:49 am
by aliantha
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 6:39 am
by Auleliel
I somehow doubt that if he started reading FoD he would continue reading until the end.
Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:41 pm
by iQuestor
Auleliel wrote:
I somehow doubt that if he started reading FoD he would continue reading until the end.
He would fall into despair and enact the Ritual Of Grammatical Desecration, which destroys all eBooks on the internet, causing that Genre to utterly pass from life and love and knowledge of Man.
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 3:54 pm
by Furls Fire
StevieG wrote:Hmmm:
Peter B: Hi Steve--
I ran across one of your responses to a July 2004 GI question concerning who the Creator is and was amazed at what you appear to be disclosing. Here's your quote:
"Having rid ourselves of those assumptions, we can then consider the possibility that the Land's "Creator" is Covenant himself (an act of imagination which he later shares with Linden); that--in a manner of speaking--both the "Creator" and the man in the ochre robe are Covenant's dopplegangers, externalized versions of aspects of himself."
Was this an attempt at crafty misdirection or should we take the clarification at face value? My guess (hope) is that the integrity of the Chronicles and ending remain.
Many, many congratulations on finishing the first draft of AATE!
"Crafty misdirection" or actual "clarification": are those my only choices? Can I pick both? Neither? Am I allowed to be overtly self-contradictory?
In the absence of comfortable alternatives, I'm going to avoid responsibility by insisting that the crucial words are "consider the possibility". If the Land is a dream/delusion, then OF COURSE Covenant is its Creator. But surely other possibilities also deserve consideration.
(05/13/2009)
Ah, hence...The Last Dark
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 2:19 pm
by thewormoftheworld'send
Furls Fire wrote:StevieG wrote:Hmmm:
Peter B: Hi Steve--
I ran across one of your responses to a July 2004 GI question concerning who the Creator is and was amazed at what you appear to be disclosing. Here's your quote:
"Having rid ourselves of those assumptions, we can then consider the possibility that the Land's "Creator" is Covenant himself (an act of imagination which he later shares with Linden); that--in a manner of speaking--both the "Creator" and the man in the ochre robe are Covenant's dopplegangers, externalized versions of aspects of himself."
Was this an attempt at crafty misdirection or should we take the clarification at face value? My guess (hope) is that the integrity of the Chronicles and ending remain.
Many, many congratulations on finishing the first draft of AATE!
"Crafty misdirection" or actual "clarification": are those my only choices? Can I pick both? Neither? Am I allowed to be overtly self-contradictory?
In the absence of comfortable alternatives, I'm going to avoid responsibility by insisting that the crucial words are "consider the possibility". If the Land is a dream/delusion, then OF COURSE Covenant is its Creator. But surely other possibilities also deserve consideration.
(05/13/2009)
Ah, hence...The Last Dark
Since TC is dead one would think the dream/delusion would end, at least if SRD wants to be consistent. So is the Land now LA's dream/delusion?
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 5:49 pm
by Orlion
Or it was always Linden's delusion
Ha, yeah right, I think that question has dropped out of the series forever and will never be brought up again...
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 7:46 pm
by thewormoftheworld'send
Orlion wrote:Or it was always Linden's delusion
Ha, yeah right, I think that question has dropped out of the series forever and will never be brought up again...
The question was dropped after the first series. However, it came up in the GI.
