Kevin's Watch

I don't know why, but after reading a Man Rides Through I felt like the quality of writing, style, etc wasn't as developed as Donaldson's usual works.

It's just a sort of "bad feeling" I have, which is different from my opinions on books which I usually make an attempt to base in exact evidence. I'm kinda curious if anyone here has similar opinions, and reasons why they feel the way they do.

No.

I actually think it contains some of his best - and most subtle - writing. I did not truly appreciate how subtle it was until we dissected it and I had to slow down enough to think of each and every word.

You actually track how Teresa learns to be human and how to express her feelings (after a childhood of neglect and emotional abuse) chapter by chapter, one tiny bit and lesson at a time.

definately disagree with Holsety and wholeheartedly agree with duchess. In retrospect this IS a departure for SRD. It perhaps seems smaller, or gentler than others of his. However, as duchess so aptly puts, it's power lies more in the subtly of it. The build-up is fantastic and the payoffs are grand and satisfiying.
I personally prefer the first book to the second. I love how the action is contained almost entirely within a castle. This was teh technique SRD would use in the clostrophobic atmosphere of spaceships in the Gap series.
And Eremis! Wow, what a deliciously evil character! ALL the characters where so well defined that they are all destincly created in my mind --- something I eventually had difficulty with in the gap series-- that not all the side characters felt complete.

Mordant's Need is my favourite SRD read --- and that is saying a lot as I love everything he puts to paper.

OOOO don't even get me started man!!!

Well, Holsety, there is no shortage of readers who feel as you do. There are already a few threads here where people have expressed disappointment with MN. Remember also that SRD lost a lot of readers after MN, so there are plenty of people out there who probably see this series as a failed project -- i.e. "Donaldson shoulda stuck with Covenant."

I personally enjoyed MN when it came out, only a few years after the Second Chronicles had shaken my world. That was a "golden age" of Donaldson reading for me. At first, MN certainly didn't knock me over like TCTC. Mordant seemed a blander place compared to the richness of the Land. At first glance, the people of Mordant seemed blander, too, compared to the people of the Land. Mordant had no earth-shattering magic and no cosmic beings. The fate of worlds did not hang in the balance. Not only that, but SRD appeared to have relegated himself to a most un-Donaldsonian place: a seemingly hackneyed fantasy realm already visited - and trashed - by lesser writers. Oh no, had SRD regressed to being a hack?

No. If his writing had been lacking, I don't see how I could've ended up finishing both Mordant books. I think the writing is remarkable. I think SRD took a moldy, cliched fantasy world and re-imagined it. Look beyond the surface and Mordant's Need reveals itself to be wonderful and fantastic in its own way. SRD 's writing isn't any lesser, he's just showing a different aspect of it. With MN, we see more of SRD's subtle humour at play. The relaxed pace of the story allows for that. We also see SRD bringing elements of the horror genre into MN. There's some pretty nasty, nightmarish stuff going on. In some of the chapters, the atmosphere is extraordinarily creepy.

So...I loved MN the first time around, but like duchess and others, I never really appreciated just how good it was until I participated in the dissection.

I'm really just repeating what I've said in other threads around here, but there you go.

I love how Donaldson brings everything down to a very human scale in Mordant. As you said, instead of the fate of worlds hanging in the balance, if the worst happens a dream is lost, the status quoe will be reestablished, and life will be a lot worse for the people of three small countries.

I also love how he turns fantasy cliches on their heads. Peace and justice and a good life for everyone are very recent innovations in this world. Selfishness and evil are the historical norms. The bad guys are fighting to get things back to the way they almost always have been. The good guys are fighting for one man's dreams...

wow, nicely put duchess.
And a great way of explaining things MM.

I think that MN has some of SRD's best character work ever. There is a boundless list of interesting, unusual, well-crafted characters, and the plot is entirely character-driven and intricate. The Chronicles perhaps has a few characters that are more deeply drawn, but MN makes up for it in numbers. This is why I enjoy it.

And I remember, too, that Chronicles intentionally takes on a lofty tone, because, as Donaldson has indicated, he thinks that this fits the story. MN isn't like that, but intentionally so. So if you're looking for more of the same, MN isn't it in many respects.

Finally, anyone who has read his GI response about the role of women in MN can tell that there is a considerable amount of depth and levels there.

Joyse is an amazing character---if you need an antihero-stick with him. And Jesus! Poor Nyle! Ranks up there with dukkha and Hamako!

Maybe I should clarify, since upon reading what I actually wrote in the topic I was by no means specific. I enjoyed the series as a whole and thought the plot was interesting. However, for whatever reason I didn't enjoy the prose style and such as much as his other works.

I can't cite any specific examples, but I often had the feeling that X statement or dialogue was somewhat simple.

There were a great deal of things I did enjoy about the series. I think my favorite was probably Joyse; a great deal of the plot ultimately revolves around his actions, and for that I suppose he's something like a Warden Dios character (though by no means the same). And yet I was uncertain of his ability for so long, because of Donaldson's pairing him with Havelock, who's truly insane at times.

I also love how he turns fantasy cliches on their heads. Peace and justice and a good life for everyone are very recent innovations in this world. Selfishness and evil are the historical norms. The bad guys are fighting to get things back to the way they almost always have been. The good guys are fighting for one man's dreams...

This went unnoticed by me when I read it, but upon recognition I certainly admit appreciation for it.

Good posts folks. I loved MN. I'll admit that the first book was sorta slow, but it was different enough that it didn't bother me. It took me a few years to find the 2nd, and when it did, it certainly became my favourite.

The story appears simple. In fact, he starts of by likening it to a fairy tale, and it does seem one. But it's a fairytale with rather solipsist leanings. Or at least, the exact opposite of solipsism, whatever that is.

As always, the detail and intricacy of the world captured my imagination. The hinted history of Mordant and it's neighbours, (particularly of the Monomach and his role), suggests an even richer past than we are told of, and the roles of Joyse and Havelock, so atypical for the genre, made for a fascinating tale of vision, dedication, betrayal and redemption.

--A

I'll admit that the first book was sorta slow,

Uh, yeah. I'm like Jay was when he was reading Runes. When I pick up MN I read a few pages and then say to myself "what's the point?" I'm probably about halfway through the book, and I don't know when if ever I'll finish it.

Persevere. It gets better.

--A

Go dlp!!! (2000th post in this forum, btw! )

That also just goes to show what diverse crowds like SRD's writing, and for different reasons. dlb and others find the first book slow (some have also said this about RotE), but I LOVED it (them). Even the Gap books: I seem to like less the ones others thought were the best (books 3 & 4).
I loved the pacing, the slow build-up. It can only be done that way in order for there to be an appropriately satisfying pay-off.
This style is shown in his last "Man Who" book (Fought Alone). There seems to be so much 'build-up' (and I use that phrase ingraciously as it is much more than 'just' build-up) at the beginning, that it may appear 'slow'. I, for one love that style, and only because a writer of SRD's ability makes it all worth it.

Good post Usivius.

--A

agreed

MN is what brought me back to SRD after many years.
I read TCTC in high school/college and picked up MN 15 year later, which eventually lead me to google SRD, which lead me to KW and to re-reading TCTC several more times.

I just thoroughly enjoy SRD's writing style(s) and his ability to paint pictures in my head - scenery, faces, animals - all of it is superb, IMO

I agree with Dutchess, the disection process really gave me a much deeper appreciation of these books, even though I loved them from the beginning.

Earthy