An observation on opinions...

[Rigel]

So, I was having some fun, reading all the horrible reviews of Stephanie Meyers' Twilight series (seriously, the bad reviews are more fun to read than the books were!), and I began to wonder about people's opinions of Donaldson's works.

I already consider SRD one of my favorite authors, and I spend a lot of time reading this forum, so I thought that maybe there are opinions out there that I haven't been exposed to. I wasn't looking for flame-bait, I just wanted to see if anyone had some valid criticisms that I wasn't aware of.

So, I did a quick Google search, and skimmed or read entirely every review returned in the first page of results. And the verdict?

50% of all reviews rate TCTC at 4.5/5 or higher.
40% rate it at 3 or 4 /5.
10% got bored in the first three chapters and never finished it.

Seriously, the WORST criticism that people had was that SRD was wordy.

Apparently, my opinion of SRD's work is not simply blind devotion, but well deserved by his extraordinary skill. I'm actually relieved to know I'm not a mindless fan-boy

[CovenantJr]

I knew a man a year or two ago who had read all six of the books in the first two Chronicles, and absolutely hated them. I don't remember his reasons now, though. I might still have them in an email somewhere I suppose. I'm sure SRD's verbosity didn't help matters though. This man writes himself, and his style is minimalist to the point of being barren.

[Demondime-a-dozen-spawn]

I'm actually relieved to know I'm not a mindless fan-boy

When accused of being a "Mindless fan-boy," I tell people they're half right, and leave it at that.

Of the people I've convinced to read TCTC, all have enjoyed or loved them. The difficulty has always been to get them to try them in the first place. Hell, it took the MFB (mindless fan-boy) who introduced me to the Chronicles a long time to convince me to read them.

Personally, I love SRD's verbosity. Obscure words embedded in byzantine passages cluttered with clauses that are hoary with cobwebs by the time I reach the end of them turn me on.

I'm no dummy. I have the best education comic books can provide.

[Furls Fire]

Some of the people I have tried to get to read the Chrons have stopped in disgust after the rape. I tell them that one incident is a catalyst of what happens in the entire first Chrons, and to a lesser degree, in the second. So, I say, read on! It only gets better! Some do, some don't, but of all the ones who have read on, they absolutely love the Chrons.

[Cail]

Maybe it's because I first read the books when I was so young, but the rape never fazed me (still doesn't, even as a father). What strikes me now is what a crybaby bastard Covenant is, and how ridiculously childish most of the character names are (especially in the first three books.

In spite of that, there's just so much....goodness in the first two series, that the story and the characters rise above those complaints.

The last two books have been utterly lacking in those good qualities. I don't care about the characters, and the story hasn't grabbed me.

[Demondime-a-dozen-spawn]

That's it in a nutshell, folks. Case closed on ALL points.

That isn't sarcasm. I'm serious.

I suppose if I were a leper I might act the same or worse, but I'm not. Thomas Covenant was in desperate need of a good ass whipping, and only the Vow and saintly forebearance spared him from it.

Spoiler

Covenant did get a little of what he had coming to him from Triock with some Raver encouragement.

The last two books have been utterly lacking in those good qualities. I don't care about the characters, and the story hasn't grabbed me.

If it didn't make me feel so bad, I'd say I'm in 100% agreement with you, but my need to maintain some shred of my delusion about the Last Chronicles only allows me be in 90% agreement. So yeah, so far, no/little good.

[wayfriend]

I've encountered a bit of Donaldson criticism out there on the Web. My perception was that Donaldson's negative critics were a higher percentage. I guess it's not as bad as I thought.

Wordiness is a common criticism. Tolkien-ripoff is another one. And another one is the lack of engagement people have with the Covenant character: he's whiney, an a-hole, doesn't do anything, etc.

All of them are, without a doubt, criticisms which a cursory, barely-a-glance review would have. In my opinion, anyone who looks into things more deeply realizes that these criticisms aren't as valid as they first appear.

Then again, there's something to be said for first impressions being important, too.

Some negative comments on the Chronicles that stuck with me. First, someone who actually admired the story but thought it was hamstrung by bad writing.

... And it’s never enough to describe something once: If a thing can be old, withered, seared by Time and flattened by the weight of years all in one sentence, Donaldson will barely consider the subject fairly covered.

In a fifty-word poem it’s usual to skew a word out of its habitual use or grammatical purpose in order to give it ambiguity and compact more meaning into it. Doing this for a three-volume epic slows things up criminally. Some of Donaldson’s writing is powerful, full of turns of phrase that startle and delight. But he can’t stop; cleverness piled on cleverness leads to something less than wisdom.

"With a howl that shivered the air, echoed savagely off the carven walls, beat against the battlements like an ululation of fangs and claws and hungry blades….."

I beg your pardon? If somebody knows how to make a sharp object ‘ululate,’ let me know. This is plain word misuse and it drives me nuts.

"His lips were contorted with a paroxysm of savage glee; ecstatic rage shone on his wet teeth…"

Shone on his wet teeth? What, rage? From where? It’s not a typo; Donaldson does it all the time.

He also makes up words like ‘trepidations’ or ‘diminishless’ which draw attention to the cleverness of his style when you’d rather be getting on with the story. Worse is the desire to use every word in the dictionary including ones for which he doesn’t know the meaning. He may believe that saying a woman’s hair is "raddled with honey-coloured streaks" sounds good in a complimentary passage, but "raddled" means "excessively or badly rouged," "dilapidated, unkempt…"

OK, and then there’s personification. On the one hand, having everything described in terms that seethe with life can be seen as either a result of the Land’s vivid life or Covenant’s hypersensitivity to it:

"A snarl jumped across his teeth, and his shoulders hunched as he strangled such thoughts.

"As they rode onwards, the silence between them glistened like the white eyes of fear."

"The mountains seemed to spring abruptly out of the ground like a frozen instant of ambuscade…."

"A frown clenched his brow like (insert prolix simile here)"

It gives the sense that you are reading a Van Gogh: everything on the brink of breaking into independent life. But when Donaldson overdoes it you find you’ve lurched out of Van Gogh into some lurid Seventies velvet painting. You know: the kind of thing with the bare-breasted South Sea Islands girl. [link]

The reviewer makes a good case; it's hard to not agree with the point.

Then there's the infamous clench racing game.

The rules are simple. Each player takes a different volume of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and at the word "go" all open their books at random and start leafing through, scanning the pages. The winner is the first player to find the word "clench". It's a fast, exciting game -- sixty seconds is unusually drawn-out -- and can be varied, if players get too good, with other favourite Donaldson words like wince, flinch, gag, rasp, exigency, mendacity, articulate, macerate, mien, limn, vertigo, cynosure.... It's a great way to get thrown out of bookshops. Good racing! [link]

Which is a humorous introduction into Donaldson's repetitive use of certain words.

[Demondime-a-dozen-spawn]

Yes, the reviewer cannot be faulted for that criticism, but personally, I thrive on that stuff and can't get enough of it.

And CLENCH sounds like a fun game.

[CovenantJr]

I agree. They're valid points, and indeed valid criticisms if you dislike those things. Personally, I enjoy the 'word misuse'; it's never seemed to me that SRD doesn't understand the words, more that he's creating an impression by using them in an unconventional context. I approve of playing with language, and of not taking things too literally. Of course fangs can't ululate, but we all get an impression from that use of the word.

Of the people I've convinced to read TCTC, all have enjoyed or loved them.

Of the (frustratingly few) people I've convinced to read TCTC, not a single one has enjoyed them. Funny how that goes eh? Having said that, I wasn't particularly impressed by LFB the first time. I thought it was mediocre except for the unusual verbosity.

[lucimay]

Obscure words embedded in byzantine passages cluttered with clauses that are hoary with cobwebs by the time I reach the end of them turn me on.

whoa.





(me too)

[danlo]

Childish names!? Come on... Screw the critics.

[High Lord Tolkien]

In a fifty-word poem it’s usual to skew a word out of its habitual use or grammatical purpose in order to give it ambiguity and compact more meaning into it. Doing this for a three-volume epic slows things up criminally. Some of Donaldson’s writing is powerful, full of turns of phrase that startle and delight. But he can’t stop; cleverness piled on cleverness leads to something less than wisdom.

"With a howl that shivered the air, echoed savagely off the carven walls, beat against the battlements like an ululation of fangs and claws and hungry blades….."

I beg your pardon? If somebody knows how to make a sharp object ‘ululate,’ let me know. This is plain word misuse and it drives me nuts.

"His lips were contorted with a paroxysm of savage glee; ecstatic rage shone on his wet teeth…"

Shone on his wet teeth? What, rage? From where? It’s not a typo; Donaldson does it all the time.

He also makes up words like ‘trepidations’ or ‘diminishless’ which draw attention to the cleverness of his style when you’d rather be getting on with the story. Worse is the desire to use every word in the dictionary including ones for which he doesn’t know the meaning. He may believe that saying a woman’s hair is "raddled with honey-coloured streaks" sounds good in a complimentary passage, but "raddled" means "excessively or badly rouged," "dilapidated, unkempt…"

OK, and then there’s personification. On the one hand, having everything described in terms that seethe with life can be seen as either a result of the Land’s vivid life or Covenant’s hypersensitivity to it:

"A snarl jumped across his teeth, and his shoulders hunched as he strangled such thoughts.

"As they rode onwards, the silence between them glistened like the white eyes of fear."

"The mountains seemed to spring abruptly out of the ground like a frozen instant of ambuscade…."

"A frown clenched his brow like (insert prolix simile here)"

It gives the sense that you are reading a Van Gogh: everything on the brink of breaking into independent life. But when Donaldson overdoes it you find you’ve lurched out of Van Gogh into some lurid Seventies velvet painting. You know: the kind of thing with the bare-breasted South Sea Islands girl. [link]

This reviewer is a dick with no imagination.

[Rigel]

It gives the sense that you are reading a Van Gogh: everything on the brink of breaking into independent life. But when Donaldson overdoes it you find you’ve lurched out of Van Gogh into some lurid Seventies velvet painting. You know: the kind of thing with the bare-breasted South Sea Islands girl. [link]

The fact that the link was NOT to "a velvet painting [of a] bare-breasted South Sea Islands girl" is a criminal example of miscommunication.

The rules are simple. Each player takes a different volume of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, and at the word "go" all open their books at random and start leafing through, scanning the pages. The winner is the first player to find the word "clench". It's a fast, exciting game -- sixty seconds is unusually drawn-out -- and can be varied, if players get too good, with other favourite Donaldson words like wince, flinch, gag, rasp, exigency, mendacity, articulate, macerate, mien, limn, vertigo, cynosure.... It's a great way to get thrown out of bookshops. Good racing! [link]

They forgot puissant

[Demondime-a-dozen-spawn]

The fact that the link was NOT to "a velvet painting [of a] bare-breasted South Sea Islands girl" is a criminal example of miscommunication.

The link was wayfriend's to the source material, not the author's to a hypothetical velvet painting.

----

I clicked the link and read what the reviewer had to say prior to the part that wayfriend presents here at KW, and he has some very good things to say about the Chronicles.

He makes a glowing reference to one of my favorite parts of the first chronicles: Donaldson's description of the cold perfection of Foul's Creche and its implications.

The reviewer's main beef seems to be with SRD's execution of the Chronicles.

[Rigel]

The fact that the link was NOT to "a velvet painting [of a] bare-breasted South Sea Islands girl" is a criminal example of miscommunication.

The link was wayfriend's to the source material, not the author's to a hypothetical velvet painting.

Yes, I know. I still feel cheated

[Demondime-a-dozen-spawn]

Yes, I know. I still feel cheated

It only occurred to me after I posted that you may just have been being "cute."

[CovenantJr]

As an aside about the rape obstacle: whenever someone complains to me about having trouble continuing after that scene, I tell them Covenant spends the whole of the rest of the series paying for - indeed, making himself pay for it. Sometimes that's enough to get someone to persist.

I first read the Chronicles when I was 16. The rape didn't bother me in the slightest. Not that I was unaffected by it as a scene, you understand, but it didn't for a moment affect my reading enjoyment any more than would Covenant eating a cake. It was just something that happened in the book. I don't understand the big fuss.

[StevieG]

I first read the Chronicles when I was 16. The rape didn't bother me in the slightest. Not that I was unaffected by it as a scene, you understand, but it didn't for a moment affect my reading enjoyment any more than would Covenant eating a cake. It was just something that happened in the book. I don't understand the big fuss.

I'm with you on that one. I didn't remotely consider discontinuing reading because of it.

[Relayer]

Neither did I. But not to get into that whole discussion any further...

The reviewers make good points about SRD's style. But reviewers like this all seem to be literalists, and don't seem to want or be able to enjoy the poetic and metaphorical nature of the writing.

To me (and I assume most of us here), what I love about it is the way it engages my imagination. Of course fangs don't ululate. But creatures like wolves which have fangs do, and this adds a depth or dimension to the experience. "Silence glistened like eyes of fear"? "Mountains that spring out of the ground like an ambush"? Bring it on

[Orlion]

It's ultimately a preference of style rather then a criticism of the work itself, and sometimes, some of the criticism seems to be a little desperate (what, an author uses some words more than others? Oh, the humanity, what tragedy!.... ).

On a side note, it seems that Tolkien is often criticized for being too wordy...