Is there any truth to this?

[danlo]

FWIW I'm a major SciFi head, I've read close to 3000, and am drawn to intelligent complex stuff (for example Zindell, Daniel, Herbert, Brin, Simmons, Stephenson and Gibson), I proudly rank SRD's Gap series in my top five of all time.

[Farm Ur-Ted]

We all think it's worth it.

--A

The only books I think I've ever re-read are the first 7 TC novels and TRS (explained earlier, not cuz I liked it), excluding crap that I had to read in school (like Lord of the Flies). And let me say, I think about going back and re-reading the entire Gap series (TRS included) all the time. I found it that good.

[ParanoiA]

If you don't like TRS, you won't like the rest of the series. Period.

I think we have to stop apologizing or reassuring folks of SRD's style. He likes it gritty and he likes it real. If folks don't like gritty (as in rape, mutilation, murder) and you don't like real (as in forgiving a rapist or murderer), then you aren't going to like SRD's masterpiece.

The Real Story had me all fired up for the rest of the series. Again, similar to the rape in Lord Foul's Bane, it showed that the author is afraid of nothing. He will go where the story needs to go, and it will therefore be believable and qualify for escapism.

Another reason it had me all fired up is because he included an afterword that essentially told me the awkward Angus / Morn story was about to explode into something else entirely, rather than to sit around playing in space with a sweaty, stinky Angus.

I'm surprised no one pulled the other SRD quote on the subject...something about most sci-fi being about a story in space, but SRD said his intent was to put people in space. People. Not robots, or cardboard cut-outs....but people. People are something else entirely, when you remove the cliches they pimp us on TV every night.

People are more like how SRD writes about them. In my opinion, of course. And that's why I read his books.

[variol son]

Definitely worth the money. A Dark and Hungry God Arises, Chaos and Order and This Day All Gods Die are in my opinion the three best works Donaldson has produced, and Forbidden Knowledge sets the scene for these three brilliantly.

I've noticed that sci-fi-reading reviewers seem to give The Gap Cycle a hard time, but fantasy-reading reviewers often do the same thing with The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, which I think has proven itself in terms of sales. Covenant was originally marketed as general fiction however, so maybe SRD's apparent lack of popularity is due more to the close-mindedness of genre readers.

[Avatar]

It's a simple enough thing...Donaldson's writing is not for everybody. But I find that the people who do appreciate it are definitely a cut above average.

--A

[ItisWritten]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the TRS you have read is the unpublished one. Of course, TRS was re-written before it was released, with the "larger narrative" firmly in mind, and of which, since it was published, we can be assured SRD was not ashamed.

Nope, no misapprehensions here, just a feeling of being completely misunderstood.

I understand TWofWE. But reading SRD will do that to readers. Don't sweat the misunderstandings. I appreciate you posting and tweaking the people here. We haven't had a meaningful run in Gap Discussion like this in a long time.

If you want to really get into what people around here think of TRS, we did a chapter by chapter discussion in Ancillary Documentation. That's where you'll find some of the answers you might be seeking.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the TRS you have read is the unpublished one. Of course, TRS was re-written before it was released, with the "larger narrative" firmly in mind, and of which, since it was published, we can be assured SRD was not ashamed.

Nope, no misapprehensions here, just a feeling of being completely misunderstood.

I understand TWofWE. But reading SRD will do that to readers. Don't sweat the misunderstandings. I appreciate you posting and tweaking the people here. We haven't had a meaningful run in Gap Discussion like this in a long time.

If you want to really get into what people around here think of TRS, we did a chapter by chapter discussion in Ancillary Documentation. That's where you'll find some of the answers you might be seeking.

Thanks IIW, I'll look for that thread. Is it usually written as "Gap" or "GAP"? I see the latter form used here a lot and it looks like an acronym for something when it is really nothing more than SRD's name for hyperdrive.

I can only tweak those who are already tweakable, especially those who believe that SRD is some kind of writing god, when in fact he himself says he is just a guy who happens to write for a living and who needs to pay his bills and eat like everybody else.

[Rigel]

Oh, he's definitely not a writing God, but he is far above average. In fact, I've been spoiled by his writing, to the point that many popular authors are completely unreadable for me.

Point in fact: a friend of mine recently passed me a novel by the guy who wrote the Bourne series, and I couldn't get more than 2 pages into it. His style is essentialy

"The man walked across the street. He looked around. A bird flew by."

Kind of hard to swallow immediately after reading all 8 Covenant books back to back

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Oh, he's definitely not a writing God, but he is far above average. In fact, I've been spoiled by his writing, to the point that many popular authors are completely unreadable for me.

Point in fact: a friend of mine recently passed me a novel by the guy who wrote the Bourne series, and I couldn't get more than 2 pages into it. His style is essentialy

"The man walked across the street. He looked around. A bird flew by."

Kind of hard to swallow immediately after reading all 8 Covenant books back to back

A few years ago, after trying to read some works of sci-fi that did not appeal to me in the slightest, I stopped trying. I'm not talking about books that I simply didn't like, and in one case I even "filed" the thing rather dramatically: I held it over the "file" container between two fingers, then let it drop in with a satisfying "plunk." I don't do that very often. (If I could have done it with the author present at the time, perhaps it would have sent him a helpful message, but probably not.)

I did not bother to try another work of fiction until the Last Chronicles came out, and even then I wasn't aware of its existence until 2006. I basically flew through both books. I think I read FR, when it finally came out, in about 2 days. I didn't want to read it that fast, it was just something I had to do.

[ParanoiA]

I can only tweak those who are already tweakable, especially those who believe that SRD is some kind of writing god, when in fact he himself says he is just a guy who happens to write for a living and who needs to pay his bills and eat like everybody else.

SRD is a living clinic on humbled acceptance. You can tell he's had to deal with confidence issues, and he's said as much, throughout his life so be careful how far you take his modesty.

SRD is not a writing god, but rather is a unique writer, as in there doesn't seem to be anybody else writing that way. He's extremely character driven, and then he's gritty and raw, thick with plot and his stuff is layered in philosophical and moral dilemmas. It's hard to find writers that write on that many levels, and those particular levels, so ends up being so one-of-a-kind that it can appear like god worship from his fanbase. Really, we just can't get this particular fix from anybody else. He's got a monopoly on his method. Good, original artists do that.

All that said, and maybe I'm misreading you, but your posts read like you don't really like his writing. Sounds like reading SRD, for you, is like work. So why are you forcing yourself to read his stories? Why throw up a nasty article about an artist to his fanbase? Just to see them kick and throw fits and take up for their guy? Of course we're going to do that, we like his writing.

So what's that doing for you? What are you getting out of this thread? Honestly, I'm confused what the point of this is.

[Zarathustra]

Why throw up a nasty article about an artist to his fanbase? Just to see them kick and throw fits and take up for their guy? Of course we're going to do that, we like his writing.

So what's that doing for you? What are you getting out of this thread? Honestly, I'm confused what the point of this is.

Wow, I finally went back and read that article. Pretty harsh!

I'm tempted to formulate an eloquent and studied rebuttal, but I don't think it's necessary. This reviewer is a

Spoiler

pussy

. That explains that. Go read some Harry Potter or watch some Disney movies, if you can't take the Gap. Christ.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I can only tweak those who are already tweakable, especially those who believe that SRD is some kind of writing god, when in fact he himself says he is just a guy who happens to write for a living and who needs to pay his bills and eat like everybody else.

SRD is a living clinic on humbled acceptance. You can tell he's had to deal with confidence issues, and he's said as much, throughout his life so be careful how far you take his modesty.

SRD is not a writing god, but rather is a unique writer, as in there doesn't seem to be anybody else writing that way. He's extremely character driven, and then he's gritty and raw, thick with plot and his stuff is layered in philosophical and moral dilemmas. It's hard to find writers that write on that many levels, and those particular levels, so ends up being so one-of-a-kind that it can appear like god worship from his fanbase. Really, we just can't get this particular fix from anybody else. He's got a monopoly on his method. Good, original artists do that.

All that said, and maybe I'm misreading you, but your posts read like you don't really like his writing. Sounds like reading SRD, for you, is like work. So why are you forcing yourself to read his stories? Why throw up a nasty article about an artist to his fanbase? Just to see them kick and throw fits and take up for their guy? Of course we're going to do that, we like his writing.

So what's that doing for you? What are you getting out of this thread? Honestly, I'm confused what the point of this is.

I read SRD for his stories, not for his writing. But TRS's story was so weak (even SRD admits as much in the Afterword to that novella) that he never even intended to publish it. I'm asking if the other four books get better.

The only interesting thing in TRS was the gimmick, "what's the real story." But here's how I sum up the plot: Angus - "I got a hankerin' for some poontang." Nick - "I got a hankerin' for some of the poontang that Angus has, so I'm gonna jockblock his candy ass." Morn - "Woe is me, I need a brave heroic rescuer like Nick to save me from Angus." Then, in the end, Morn and Nick win because Angus got tired and fell asleep.

[rdhopeca]

I can only tweak those who are already tweakable, especially those who believe that SRD is some kind of writing god, when in fact he himself says he is just a guy who happens to write for a living and who needs to pay his bills and eat like everybody else.

SRD is a living clinic on humbled acceptance. You can tell he's had to deal with confidence issues, and he's said as much, throughout his life so be careful how far you take his modesty.

SRD is not a writing god, but rather is a unique writer, as in there doesn't seem to be anybody else writing that way. He's extremely character driven, and then he's gritty and raw, thick with plot and his stuff is layered in philosophical and moral dilemmas. It's hard to find writers that write on that many levels, and those particular levels, so ends up being so one-of-a-kind that it can appear like god worship from his fanbase. Really, we just can't get this particular fix from anybody else. He's got a monopoly on his method. Good, original artists do that.

All that said, and maybe I'm misreading you, but your posts read like you don't really like his writing. Sounds like reading SRD, for you, is like work. So why are you forcing yourself to read his stories? Why throw up a nasty article about an artist to his fanbase? Just to see them kick and throw fits and take up for their guy? Of course we're going to do that, we like his writing.

So what's that doing for you? What are you getting out of this thread? Honestly, I'm confused what the point of this is.

I've been thinking the same thing actually, that his posts sound like he's not very happy about things. But I didn't know how quite to word it without sounding accusatory.

[ParanoiA]

I read SRD for his stories, not for his writing. But TRS's story was so weak (even SRD admits as much in the Afterword to that novella) that he never even intended to publish it. I'm asking if the other four books get better.

See, I read SRD for his stories too. And when I read The Real Story, I was taken back by the stark difference from his Covenant prose. After reading 6 books of his, I never thought to ask others if it gets better, I just tried it. But then, I find little value in estimating subjective art work through strangers.

And this is what made me suspicious of your intent. Don't mean to sound accusatory, but it still strikes me as odd that someone who enjoys an author would suddenly require reassurance from people they don't know after reading a questionable little book that explains itself at the end. You already know it's considered his masterpiece, so what else is there to do but read it and find out?

The only interesting thing in TRS was the gimmick, "what's the real story." But here's how I sum up the plot: Angus - "I got a hankerin' for some poontang." Nick - "I got a hankerin' for some of the poontang that Angus has, so I'm gonna jockblock his candy ass." Morn - "Woe is me, I need a brave heroic rescuer like Nick to save me from Angus." Then, in the end, Morn and Nick win because Angus got tired and fell asleep.

Haha. Now that's the most interesting summary of TRS I've heard yet. I like it.

I've been thinking the same thing actually, that his posts sound like he's not very happy about things. But I didn't know how quite to word it without sounding accusatory.

And I can assure you I didn't achieve that either. I tried, but my emotion bled through.

[Zarathustra]

The only interesting thing in TRS was the gimmick, "what's the real story." But here's how I sum up the plot: Angus - "I got a hankerin' for some poontang." Nick - "I got a hankerin' for some of the poontang that Angus has, so I'm gonna jockblock his candy ass." Morn - "Woe is me, I need a brave heroic rescuer like Nick to save me from Angus." Then, in the end, Morn and Nick win because Angus got tired and fell asleep.

Haha. Now that's the most interesting summary of TRS I've heard yet. I like it.

Ha! I liked that, too.

But it misses the point. Sure the plot is simple. Sure, the relationships seem like melodrama. But if you think that's the Real Story, then you've missed the point like the people in Mallory's.

The real story isn't the plot. The real story isn't melodrama. From my own dissection:

As some have said, [Chapters 1 and 2 are] simply peeling away another layer. That in itself accomplishes nothing except showing that there ARE layers, i.e. that the story is complex. And really, if there were only two layers, then the whole idea of there being a Real Story (one which is missed by nearly everyone) would be lame. Only the most inattentive among us could fail to see past the surface, on to the very next layer. So there has to be several layers, merely for this Real Story idea to be a plausible narrative device.

But what are these layers? The Chapter One layer is the melodrama, the romanticization of this very unromantic triangle, the animal passion in: “. . . just another example of animal passion. . .” (p.3) The Chapter Two layer is the “common sense” in: “The only uncommon feature was that in this case the passion included some common sense.” (p.3). It’s the plotting behind the scenes, Nick’s plan to get Angus arrested and rescue the maiden. The trickery and subterfuge. It’s the plot.

So by making this a “framed story,” by telling us the the necessary events and how they turn out (Chapter 2), Donaldson is saying that the actual events aren’t the Real Story either. You can know what happened between these characters, the external outcomes, and still not know the Real Story . . . because the Real Story isn’t what happened, but how it happened. These events wouldn’t have been possible if fundamental alterations in the psychology of these character hadn’t occurred (mostly Angus).

That’s the Real Story. It explains both layers spelled out in the first two chapters: it’s how the events come to fruition (chapter 2), and how the melodrama becomes drama (chapter 1).

[snip]

So chapter 2 ends with two very important mysteries, the first real clues that the plot isn’t the Real Story. Though the “story” is known, there’s two flaws in this story. 1) The supply ship from Earth arrived on schedule. 2) The control to Morn Hyland’s zone implant was never found.

The first mystery has to do with Nick’s cleverness. The second has to do with Morn’s victimization. Conspicuously . . . there’s a flaw left out here. Donaldson is saving something for the end. The triangle isn’t complete. There’s a third flaw in the chapter 2 “story” that Donaldson comes back to on the very last page:

"The real story, however, was that Angus never complained he’d been framed. He never mentioned there was a traitor in Security; he made no effort to defend himself. For the most part, he betrayed no reaction at all to his doom. When he heard Bright Beauty was going to be dismantled, he howled as if he were in agony; but he let Morn and Nick go. He had that much courage, anyway."

At the end of my last post in the chapter 2 discussion, I mentioned a “third flaw” in the known story. Though it was conspicuously left out of chapter 2, Donaldson starts with it immediately at the beginning of chapter 3. “Angus surprised his prosecutors further by refusing to defend himself, testify on his own behalf.” (p. 30). So Donaldson is clearly thinking about it, and clearly sees the narrative flow between these “flaws.” And he wants us to think about it, too. So he plants the seeds here at the beginning of chapter three—the first chapter where the story starts to move forward.

[snip]

This is vital to understanding Angus, and his alteration throughout the series: he didn’t defend himself, even though it cost him everything. And yet, his lack of defense doesn’t arise through a complete loss of self. He still retains enough of his desire to live to mourn for the loss of his ship. Those two facts don’t add up. If he still cares about the one thing he loves (his ship—which is really his freedom, power, autonomy, etc.—which means he still cares about himself), then why doesn’t he defend himself?

The Real Story isn't really shown until the end of the last book.

I think you have underestimated TRS, and by doing so, your expectations for the subsequent novels are lowered. Read the dissection! TRS is far from the "flawed intro" to this series. It's a work of art.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

I read SRD for his stories, not for his writing. But TRS's story was so weak (even SRD admits as much in the Afterword to that novella) that he never even intended to publish it. I'm asking if the other four books get better.

See, I read SRD for his stories too. And when I read The Real Story, I was taken back by the stark difference from his Covenant prose. After reading 6 books of his, I never thought to ask others if it gets better, I just tried it. But then, I find little value in estimating subjective art work through strangers.

And this is what made me suspicious of your intent. Don't mean to sound accusatory, but it still strikes me as odd that someone who enjoys an author would suddenly require reassurance from people they don't know after reading a questionable little book that explains itself at the end. You already know it's considered his masterpiece, so what else is there to do but read it and find out?

SRD wrote in his GI that most people who read the Chronicles have not ventured any further with his works, and I happen to be one of them. If I have to spend money I don't have on books I won't like, I'll be very disappointed. You're right that I enjoy the author, that is, in terms of having read and enjoyed all eight published books of the Chronicles.
After reading these magnificent stories, I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined that the Gap was considered (by his fans) SRD's masterpiece or magnum opus, and not the Chronicles.

As far as asking strangers their opinions, I am definitely safer asking fellow SRD fans about the books, since I myself am a fan.

And (responding to another recent post) the reviewer was harsh, but, after all, the very first poster (Avatar) who responded to it agreed with it in 4 places, whether it was harsh or not:

The series opens with a deceptively slim novel, a novella rather, that turns out to be only an introduction.

That's true.

Primarily known as a writer of fantasy, Donaldson seems to have learned his science from other fiction. He lacks an understanding of orders of magnitude and generally walks the line between impausible and wrong.

Well, I've heard it mentioned that the science is bad in places, but then, I'm not a scientist...

People are raped and debased to the core of their being.

That's true.

there is more treason, treachery, betrayal, and corruption than ever. Everybody has their own hidden agenda. Everybody betrays everybody else. Plots, counter-plots, and treachery keep the situation continually twisting. The story reaches a staggering complexity. The feelings of the protagonists are reduced to mutual, most intense hatred. Hurt, abuse, pain, madness abound.

That's pretty true too.

[Zarathustra]

And (responding to another recent post) the reviewer was harsh, but, after all, the very first poster (Avatar) who responded to it agreed with it in 4 places, whether it was harsh or not:

there is more treason, treachery, betrayal, and corruption than ever. Everybody has their own hidden agenda. Everybody betrays everybody else. Plots, counter-plots, and treachery keep the situation continually twisting. The story reaches a staggering complexity. The feelings of the protagonists are reduced to mutual, most intense hatred. Hurt, abuse, pain, madness abound.

That's pretty true too.

If that doesn't scream, "Damn interesting story!" to you--or anyone who reads fiction--then I don't understand why people read stories. Without conflict, it's not even a story. And the more conflict you have, the greater potential for payoff. The things this reviewer complains about are the reasons why this series is Donaldson's masterpiece.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

Malik,

Rather than quote you at length I'll just thank you for reposting that interesting dissection. I agree wholeheartedly with it. The saving grace of the novel is what I call its "gimmick" which is, what is the real story?, and the layering technique this necessarily involves.

The real story isn't the plot. The real story isn't melodrama.

So the real story isn't the plot? The plot isn't the "real story" of this novella? But isn't that what I've been saying all along?

The flaws you mentioned are not the real story. I'll tell you what the real story is: TRS is a novel about redemption. Surprised? Here is how:

The real story, however, was that Angus never complained he’d been framed. He never mentioned there was a traitor in Security; he made no effort to defend himself. For the most part, he betrayed no reaction at all to his doom. When he heard Bright Beauty was going to be dismantled, he howled as if he were in agony; but he let Morn and Nick go. He had that much courage, anyway."

The real story is the story of Angus's redemption. Angus is presented as a coward throughout the novel, but in the end he finds the courage not to tell the truth of the story. That is the point of his own redemption from cowardice even in the face of losing his freedom and, most importantly of all, his ship. In this way, SRD's religious background comes shining through once again as he depicts Angus moving from the Covenant of Law - controlled by his cowardice and earthy desires - to the Covenant of Grace, the eventual spiritual freedom from Law even while he is physically imprisoned by the law.

So I quite agree that my plot-line summation was not the real story, and in fact, was superficial. But you must admit it did garner a few laughs.

[Zarathustra]

The flaws you mentioned are not the real story. I'll tell you what the real story is: TRS is a novel about redemption. Surprised? Here is how:

That's what I was saying! The flaws in the "story" (at least the story everyone else in Mallory's or in station security knows) are the clues to the Real Story . . . those flaws show what is missing from the known account. And what is missing is Angus's internal psychological changes.

I've read this series about 7 times, and you think you can surprise me about its point?

So I quite agree that my plot-line summation was not the real story, and in fact, was superficial. But you must admit it did garner a few laughs.

Oh, yeah. I liked it. Got a chuckle out of me.

[thewormoftheworld'send]

And (responding to another recent post) the reviewer was harsh, but, after all, the very first poster (Avatar) who responded to it agreed with it in 4 places, whether it was harsh or not:

That's pretty true too.

If that doesn't scream, "Damn interesting story!" to you--or anyone who reads fiction--then I don't understand why people read stories. Without conflict, it's not even a story. And the more conflict you have, the greater potential for payoff. The things this reviewer complains about are the reasons why this series is Donaldson's masterpiece.

Obviously, a plot-line is about conflict by its very definition. However, the deepest plot level of an SRD novel does not involve the interplay between his characters, but the spiritual conflicts within his protagonists.

After deciding that TRS was really, at the deepest, most transcendental and noumenal level, a story about Angus's spiritual redemption, I'm afraid that the rest of the series might be a disappointment after reading it. The original reviewer was so completely taken in by the externalities of the series - the brutality and complex intrigue - that he did not bother to look beneath the surface, assuming there is anything there. I haven't read them so I don't know. Perhaps I trust that SRD wouldn't waste his time on superficiality, and that this series is so well-respected among his fan-base because there is more to it than meets the average reviewer's eye.