Kevin's Watch

Now, with the caveat/admission that (a) this is a bit of a nonce question and (b) I've only read the Chronicles, is it fair to say that:

- in the First Chronicles, SRD was primarily a story teller. He developed a hell of a good tale with a fantastic set of rounded characters (who truly developed through the stories) and took you through it.

- in the Second Chronicles, he was developing his technique in a different direction. He added to the mix the introduction of more puzzles and riddles into the story. Rather than just taking the reader along for an amazing ride, he also wanted to manipute and tease the reader a bit. The Elohim, Vain, the Worm, the advice of the Dead etc - these might be regarded as conundums and mysteries that the reader is given tantalising hints in relation to as we go along.

(By contrast, the First Chronicles involve very little in the way of such teasing the reader. There is Amok, and LF always seeks to deceive, but he is deceiving TC etc rather than the Reader, but that is about it - and they are mostly resolved within the same book. The drama and enjoyment is in following the story and character development.)

- in the Last Chronicles, the rise of the riddle and puzzle is complete. It is a mass (morass?) of riddles and puzzles that the Reader is utterly unable (because we aren't given the tools) to decipher within the context of a particular book (maybe by the end....).

Now, this is all subjective I know, but do people feel that the riddle-fest is in danger of detracting from (rather than enhancing) the story? It is probably just because I am a relatively shallow reader that I am concerned this is the case and others will find the enhanced "playfulness" of the twists and turns engrossing and stimulating?

And as a couple of supplementaries:
- is it to some extent this additional element of complexity that he is referring to when he refers to himself as having different strengths as a writer now
- does the use of so many Reader riddles owe a lot to his Reed Stephens persona?

PS Please if possible avoid any Gap spoilers if you reply as I haven't read that yet.

umhm. /nod nod

i'd tend to agree with your developement theory, barn.
i'd also tend to agree that the riddle-fest does detract from the story to some degree.

I hadn't thought about it in those terms...
I may have to think about it more, and not have a "complete" answer till the series is over.
But my initial thought [briefly] is that this is related to the scope of the story. Everything is bigger, more powerful, more far reaching, more mysterious...even the cast of characters.
As a specific example: One of the main questions in the first series was "How does a man come to terms with his own despair?" [there are other questions, of course].
One of the main questions for this last series is "How does a world come to terms with entropy/destruction?" [again, there are others].
And the two questions are related, even inseparable.

[ If we want to discuss the writing and style in the Final Chronicles, it is probably best that this thread be moved to a Final Chronicles forum. ]

If you have read all of Donaldson's works, not just the Chronicles, I think you get a much clearer picture of how his style has changed. (Barnetto, I'm not trying to imply that you haven't.)

Before the Final Chronicles, he had written four mystery novels. Mystery novels in which, he explains, the protagonist has a vested interest in the mystery that they attempt to solve. (Something he considered generally lacking in the genre.)

Certainly, I think anyone has read any Axbrewder/Fistoulari novels will see much in terms of style that spills over into the Final Chronicles.

The basis for the mystery-novel style traces back to the GAP series, and some of his short stories. However, this was an emerging set of style elements, while others were at the fore. The GAP series primarilly an excercise of a multi-protagonist, multiple point-of-view narrative.

And there's elements of THAT in the Final Chronicles, too.

And the multi-protagonist, multiple point-of-view narrative that we find in the GAP series centers around a drama put into motion by powerful leaders who have an unsual sense of how to use their ultimate power over other men. Dios and Fasner in particular.

And THAT you can find first germinated in the Mordant's need series, which King Joyse. King Joyse, who can be seen as Donaldson's creation of an Anti-Foul of sorts. Someone who uses others, but who does so for noble reasons.

And so the roots of that series come back to the earlier Chronicles.

Donaldson has said in so many words that each work he does is built upon what he learned from his previous works. The task of completing each work enabled him to consider something more ambitions for the next one.

Supposedly, the Final Chronicles are the pinnacle of his ambitions. The hardest thing he has ever undertaken.

- - - - - - - -

That all said, there's much I miss about the old Donaldson. Particularly, I miss his ability to drag you along emotionally. Even if it's maudlin at some times, the emotional crescendoes you reach as you read his works (and you know what they are: Coercri; Banefire; like that) make it all worthwhile.

His newer style is greatly pared down. Emotional layers seem to be peeled away. I feel certain this is necessary in order to tell his vaster stories in the space available. (I think if the Final Cs were written like the Second Cs were, they'd be about eight books.)

Frankly, I liked the journey as much as the destination, so I don't prefer his pared down style over his original.

[quote="wayfriend"][ If we want to discuss the writing and style in the Final Chronicles, it is probably best that this thread be moved to a Final Chronicles forum. ]

I am actually modding this Wayfriend.

This is a non specific discussion. It can stay here for the time being.

Just a reminder everyone: No Last Chronicles spoilers. Thanks

Seareach wrote:I am actually modding this Wayfriend.

I don't see it in terms of "riddles"... I see it in terms of complexity.

We certainly don't know what's going to happen, but that's true of any of his series. I challenge anyone to read halfway through ANY of his series, and predict the ending.

Anyway, the real changes I see between the earlier and later SRD:

Complexity of themes. The first Chrons, compared to the final, were quite shallow (of course, compared to other contemporary writings, they're still exquisitely profound). Essentially, they're a one-trick pony, with just about everything focusing on TC and his self-loathing. The final Chrons have Linden's despair as well, but it's much more complex simply because the relationships are more complex now.

Complexity of story. Again, this is something that SRD developed over time, but the story of the final Chrons involves many separate strands that must be threaded together, whereas the first Chrons had 2 or 3 (TC, Troy, Coercri, Mhoram... OK, that's four). All the stories are pertinent to the Chrons as a whole.

Immersion in the character. This is the great triumph of the Axbrewder / Fistoulari novels, I believe. Those books were where SRD really learned how to use the POV of an unreliable narrator, and immerse you completely in how they see the world (in fact, those "mystery" novels aren't nearly so mysterious to the reader as they are to the protagonist... which doesn't even matter in the end, because it's all about how the protagonist sees things). He then took it to a new level in the GAP and, in the final Chrons, has applied everything he's learned about this with a vengeance. While the earlier Chrons certainly had some powerful scenes and moments, the final Chrons are replete with them. In fact, virtually every page has been filled with an intensity that's unmatched in his other works.

I'm thoroughly loving the last Chrons; I can't wait to see how they end, or to see what SRD goes on to write after.

What you really have to do Barnetto is read the Gap series.

--A

wayfriend wrote:(I think if the Final Cs were written like the Second Cs were, they'd be about eight books.)

Works for me! Except that it would take him 24 years to write!!

Rigel wrote:I don't see it in terms of "riddles"... I see it in terms of complexity.

I definitely see riddles. Although "riddles" may not be the best term to use. "Vested Mysteries" may be closer to the mark.

More and more, Donaldson writes about characters making choices when they don't understand many things about what they're choosing, or the matrix in which the choice is made. Therefore, they can't see the outcomes. There's an exploration of ethics in this. It's not about guessing correctly - it's about making choices that later you can live with yourself for having made that choice, whether or not it worked out for the best.

In the GAP series, Donaldson pushed this to the limits. Many characters. All of them having a different part of the picture. All of them making decisions based on the parts that they could see. The many results interacting with each other in fascinating ways. The way that their partly-uninformed choices nevertheless molded the reality that they could not clearly see. Who could live with and accept the unforseen consequences; who could not. Who could pay the price for their decisions, without decrying the choice as unfair because they didn't know everything.

In the Man Who series, and in the Final Cs, it's more than just operating on limited knowledge, acting in a world that you can only partially see. The characters have personal quests - whether it be saving one's niece or saving the Created universe - quests which are difficult because they don't have enough answers. Acquiring answers becomes part of the quest. As is being forced to act without the answers, and handling whatever may be the result.

Donaldson's characters are never "wrong", because they always truly act based on who they are and what they know, and they always deal with the consequences in the same way. If the reader finally gets the answer to the mysteries, that's only a fraction of the purpose of the story. It's how the characters get there that's what is really important.

wayfriend wrote:

Rigel wrote:I don't see it in terms of "riddles"... I see it in terms of complexity.

I definitely see riddles. Although "riddles" may not be the best term to use. "Vested Mysteries" may be closer to the mark.

More and more, Donaldson writes about characters making choices when they don't understand many things about what they're choosing, or the matrix in which the choice is made. Therefore, they can't see the outcomes. There's an exploration of ethics in this. It's not about guessing correctly - it's about making choices that later you can live with yourself for having made that choice, whether or not it worked out for the best.

In the GAP series, Donaldson pushed this to the limits. Many characters. All of them having a different part of the picture. All of them making decisions based on the parts that they could see. The many results interacting with each other in fascinating ways. The way that their partly-uninformed choices nevertheless molded the reality that they could not clearly see. Who could live with and accept the unforseen consequences; who could not. Who could pay the price for their decisions, without decrying the choice as unfair because they didn't know everything.

In the Man Who series, and in the Final Cs, it's more than just operating on limited knowledge, acting in a world that you can only partially see. The characters have personal quests - whether it be saving one's niece or saving the Created universe - quests which are difficult because they don't have enough answers. Acquiring answers becomes part of the quest. As is being forced to act without the answers, and handling whatever may be the result.

Donaldson's characters are never "wrong", because they always truly act based on who they are and what they know, and they always deal with the consequences in the same way. If the reader finally gets the answer to the mysteries, that's only a fraction of the purpose of the story. It's how the characters get there that's what is really important.

Very true, and nicely explained. In fact this is one of the main factors that separates writers I like from those I don't. Far, far too much fiction is on the basis of "if I'd only known X clue, understood Y is a betrayer" always the implication that it could have been known...with SRD, it's not a matter of "if I'd known,"...it's essentially unknowable, but you have to decide anyway.
Which, for my money, whatever the setting/genre, is as close to realism as you can get, and a driving source/force of the character's developement/drama.

Avatar wrote:What you really have to do Barnetto is read the Gap series.

--A

... which I have now done. Though I fear that once is not enough to get a proper handle on this series.

Just two things to add with the benefit of a read through the Gap Cycle however:

- firstly, I think that the multiple POV of the Gap Cycle lends itself to the complexity of plot/riddle aspect more easily. Obviously, SRD is using a number of other elements in the Last Chronicles to alleviate this issue, but it seems to me that it is more difficult to sustain the plot complexity with a limited POV without the reader starting to become more and more confused. At least this is perhaps authentic from the POV character's perspective, but I find it more difficult to enjoy as a reader. Having said that, I also read through Runes and FR a second time and had far less issue with what I referred to as "riddles" that time - knowledge of where the story was going and a more recent appreciation of the back story definitely helped.

- secondly, looking at the GI for SRD comments on Gap Cycle I came across the following that is pertenant to this discussion:

Hilary: I sense a great deal of similarity between Runes and "The Real Story" beyond them both being the beginning of a tale. You talk of needing to develop your skills further before tacking the Last Chronicles. To what extent was The Real Story a preparation for Runes? And would you care to comment on any correlations between the two?

In a sense, "the past is [always] prologue." Who we were enables who we are. Doubtless I would not be writing "The Last Chronicles" *exactly* as I am if I had not first written the GAP books. And of course there is another sense as well in which both "The Real Story" and "The Runes of the Earth" are "prologues." More and more, I seem to need a big wind-up before I throw my first real pitch (although I prefer to think of it as "building a solid foundation"). For that matter, "Forbidden Knowledge" is also a bit of a "prologue": one could argue that I don't throw my first real pitch in the GAP books until the last page of "Forbidden Knowledge".

But I'll ask you to keep in mind that I can only move forward in time, not backward--and I don't have a crystal ball. I wrote "The Real Story" and the rest of the GAP books for their own sake, not in preparation for anything. I've talked about needing to become a better writer before I tackled "The Last Chronicles," but this was not a "planned" or "explicit" process: I simply pushed myself to accept every challenge that my imagination offered. In retrospect, it's easy to see patterns; development; preparation. But I don't live retrospectively, and I certainly don't write that way. So you could say that "The Last Chronicles" have a great deal to do with the GAP books, but that the GAP books have nothing whatever to do with "The Last Chronicles."

Anyone who steps back from my work and looks at all of it in sequence can probably see that it contains a growing element of "machination," manipulation, plotting, concealed intentions. After writing the first "Covenant" trilogy, I wrote my first mystery novel--and Lord Foul's "designs" became far more subtle and multivalent in "The Second Chronicles". After "The Second Chronicles," I wrote my second mystery novel--and "Mordant's Need" is all about political intrigue. After my third mystery novel, I wrote the GAP books--and then my fourth mystery. In some sense, *all* of this was preparation for "The Last Chronicles." All of everything that we've ever done is preparation for what we do now.

But that doesn't mean we saw it coming.