Kevin's Watch

Okay, so I've already stated my irritation and disappointment at the culmination of the Last Chrons. I've been irked enough to try to work out what in the world SRD was attempting to do. What his actual objective might have been, if you like, because he sure as Hell didn't manage (or bother?) to produce a narratively satisfying, emotionally wringing and dramatically engrossing ending with TLD.

As I've already posted elsewhere, my irritation led me to come up with a Jungian take on TLD, based on SRD's strident and repeated insistence that the key to the Last Chrons lay in a "psychological paradigm" and again, in the "schools of psychology" that interest him. Others maintain that you can only appreciate the book's "deeper significance" if you view it in a Surrealist light.

But frankly, so bloody what? I'm not going to sit here hugging my knees in delight at my own cleverness in allegedly working this out. I'm not going to don saffron-coloured robes, assume a lotus position, murmuring "Aaaah grasshopper, you just need to open your mind" and shake my head pityingly and condescendingly at anyone who doesn't see (let alone buy into) this. And even if I'm right - again as I've already said - this pap pop psychology is hardly original... the self-same psycho-view of existence was done way more entertainingly back in 1965 in a classic Star Trek episode, plus a hundred other places.

None of that's really important... it's all high-falutin bullshit, basically. Iolanthe recently posted a topic very sensibly headed "It's just a bloody book, isn't it?" Yes, it absolutely is and needs to be judged on the merits and against the standards which it has set for itself - never forget, it's the meant-to-be epic dénouement of a 30+ year journey.

So, let's take Occam's Razor to this. The least complex solution is most likely the right one. And that is, just like the ending of "Lost"...

...With The Last Dark, SRD and the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant finally jumped the shark.

SRD has been quoted as saying that first and foremost, he's a story-teller. Well, if that's the case, he's seriously taken his eye off the ball with TLD and in it, he's failed in his stated primary goal. Very simply put, and for the multiple reasons that numerous of us have posted - whether lack of characterisation resulting in failure to emotionally engage the reader, all too frequent uses of dei ex machinae, careless and rushed tying off of previously set-up plot threads or whatever - TLD isn't a very good "story", and especially when quite naturally measured against its siblings (TPTP and WGW).

And that's the simplest answer to things. Okay, so maybe SRD *did* want to educate us all with his Jungian view of the world and the individual. So what? That's not being "first and foremost a story-teller". Such lecturing is pure self-indulgence. And regardless of whether it's there or not, TLD is narratively disappointing. Period. (I think it is there and it is precisely that which spoils TLD. If SRD had spent more care on the demands of the storyline rather than allegory, he might not have dissatisfied as much as he sadly has - if I wanted preaching at, I'd have gone to church, or if I wanted a guru, I'd have gone to Katmandu.).

So I'm lucky enough through a little education to know a little about Freud and Jung. And others are lucky enough to know a little about the Surrealist movement in art. But why should an appreciation of a book have to be that eclectic and excluding? I for one am absolutely NOT going to make excuses for TLD simply because I may, just may, be able to see some "deeper" authorial intent. Even if I do, I don't like the fact that such intent screwed up the narrative. Plus, if you go down the route of delving ever more desperately for some deeply hidden meaning, you'll eventually find yourself excusing anything - it risks being blinkered hero worship, or "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome, as I've said elsewhere.

Guys. Sometimes a banana is just a banana and not some deeply allegorical symbol.Sometimes a fish with legs is just a fish with legs. Sometimes a man in a bowler hat with an apple in from of his face is just a man in a bowler hat with an apple in from of his face....

...And sometimes a badly flawed story is just a badly flawed story. A story from someone who considers himself "first and foremost a story-teller" therefore should first and foremost satisfy as a story, with any "message", if there at all, being secondary and seamlessly implicit. Sadly this particular story isn't a narratively satisfying one at all.

TheFallen wrote:Okay, so I've already stated my irritation and disappointment at the culmination of the Last Chrons. I've been irked enough to try to work out what in the world SRD was attempting to do. What his actual objective might have been...

<snip>

...And sometimes a badly flawed story is just a badly flawed story. A story from someone who considers himself "first and foremost a story-teller" therefore should first and foremost satisfy as a story, with any "message", if there at all, being secondary and seamlessly implicit. Sadly this particular story isn't a narratively satisfying one at all.

SO you are saying that SRD didnt have a higher purpose that simply fell flat, he just jumped the shark and moved onto the next thing?

I think he had something in mind for the end, but I for one think he just got tired of it and TLD was just done as quickly and efficiently as he could possibly do. tie up all the threads you are able to, and take a stab at a happy ending. By the time he got to the last few chapters, I dont think he was even trying anymore. "Rising in the wake of the Worm of the Worlds end, they ascended," indeed.

TLD is what it is and as a book, it failed (In my opinion) and as the ending to a 4 book series it really failed, and as the end of the chronicles, its a black hole.

I still love 1 & 2 chrons, and Ill re-read them again, but like others have said, I doubt seriously I'll ever re-read The last chrons again.

I'm reminded of an interview with Steven Spielberg. He said something to the effect that, after he became a parent, he looked back at some of his early films and he realized he wouldn't have been able to make "Close Encounters" and tell the story of how Roy (Richard Dreyfuss) let his obsession with the UFO's lead him to leave his family and go off to try and follow them.

I wonder if something similar isn't true of SRD; he's changed as a person in ways that made him unable to tell some stories, or to tell them the way we're used to him telling them...and that's how we end up with the LC's and especially TLD.

I'm saying that, regardless of whether SRD had some message that he was driven to convey or not, TLD is a big disappointment, narratively speaking. Given that SRD has already conclusively proven in the First and Second Chrons just how emotively and involvingly he can write, the probability IMHO is that his determination to get the allegory across led him to ignore the demands of the narrative.

Either way, whether through an over-inflated and self-indulgent desire to educate, or because he was tight against publishing deadlines, or because he was just tired of the whole Covenant thing... SRD jumped the shark with TLD. Against that massively disappointing fact, the reason's pretty much irrelevant - except as a minor point of interest.

starkllr wrote:I'm reminded of an interview with Steven Spielberg. He said something to the effect that, after he became a parent, he looked back at some of his early films and he realized he wouldn't have been able to make "Close Encounters" and tell the story of how Roy (Richard Dreyfuss) let his obsession with the UFO's lead him to leave his family and go off to try and follow them.

I wonder if something similar isn't true of SRD; he's changed as a person in ways that made him unable to tell some stories, or to tell them the way we're used to him telling them...and that's how we end up with the LC's and especially TLD.

SRD isnt the same writer as he was when he was writing 1 & 2 chrons. And we arent the same readers. I am sure he can still tell a story, he just didnt do a good job telling this one, For whatever reason.

I don't think the allegory was the problem. These books have always been about TC confronting his inner Despiser in an external form. SRD has stated this as his intention from the beginning (in his essay on Epic Fantasy, found on his site).

There's no reason why the ending of LD couldn't have been as satisfying as the ending of WGW. Honestly, the ending of PTP was a little weak, with everyone laughing at Foul. Symbolically, it was awesome, but narratively it, too, fell short. (Just imagine that as the end of a film version of this book ... everyone laughing. There's no way movie-goers would buy that.) This could have been the best ending of them all, much better than a ghostly protagonist protecting some Arch.

So the problem was entirely one of execution. Too much emphasis on physical fights, and not enough on character development. That's a bizarre thing to say about any Donaldson book, much less the end of TCTC. His books have always been character driven. I don't understand this new emphasis at the expense of the main point. To me, the pointless battles were jumping the shark.

Oh, and the epilogue.

Thanks to all of you (and Wikipedia,) I've learned a new phrase - "jumping the shark."

dlbpharmd wrote:Thanks to all of you (and Wikipedia,) I've learned a new phrase - "jumping the shark."

I think it was Happy Days that coined the Phrase, wasnt it, when the Fonz jumped a tank with a shark in it on his motorcycle?

iQuestor wrote:

dlbpharmd wrote:Thanks to all of you (and Wikipedia,) I've learned a new phrase - "jumping the shark."

I think it was Happy Days that coined the Phrase, wasnt it, when the Fonz jumped a tank with a shark in it on his motorcycle?

According to Wikipedia, Fonzie was skiing and jumped a shark. The phrase has come to mean the point in time when a series has run out of ideas and has lost relevance.

I thought the Theomach was in his proper time when we saw him, and his actual name was Kenaustin Ardenol.

It does seem odd that the Haruchai (or anyone else) never mentions the Insequent. But that's minor gripe for a retcon that's much more problematic going forward rather than backward. Where did they go in LD? Why do they always seem to die--and take away their plot surmountable possibilities--just when they've moved our hereos a step or two down their road? They are invented solely for removing particular obstacles, but in order to keep this power from removing all obstacles entirely, SRD just kills them off. Weird. And too damn convenient.

I agree completely about Kevin's Dirt being pointless and questionable, as mentioned elsewhere.

I have no idea how Roger and croyal can transport into Lost Deep, but the Harrow can't, especially now that we know the Insequent's power is similar to white gold, which can also provide entrance into the Lost Deep without going through the front door. The various distinctions between all the magics often times seems arbitrary and contrived to produce random limits by which the plot is possible.

However, I think Roger and croyal couldn't transport themselves into the Earthblood chamber because it was destroyed during Elena's battle with dead Kevin.

I thought the Theomach was in his proper time when we saw him, and his actual name was Kenaustin Ardenol.

Correct,

However, I think Roger and croyal couldn't transport themselves into the Earthblood chamber because it was destroyed during Elena's battle with dead Kevin.

and correct. Originally, Roger and Jeremiah wanted to reach the time of Damelon Giantfriend, and intended to walk to Earthroot before Damelon's Door was created. Since the Theomach intervened, and drew them further back to Berek's time, a different mode of transportation was utilized.

dlbpharmd wrote:

iQuestor wrote:

dlbpharmd wrote:Thanks to all of you (and Wikipedia,) I've learned a new phrase - "jumping the shark."

I think it was Happy Days that coined the Phrase, wasnt it, when the Fonz jumped a tank with a shark in it on his motorcycle?

According to Wikipedia, Fonzie was skiing and jumped a shark. The phrase has come to mean the point in time when a series has run out of ideas and has lost relevance.

Yes, and more recently it's also taken on the connotation of a position or argument in political debate being discredited by exaggeration or overstatement.

dlbpharmd wrote:

I thought the Theomach was in his proper time when we saw him, and his actual name was Kenaustin Ardenol.

Correct

Then I am confusing the situation somehow...but it has been a while since I read FR. How did he know they were going to time travel and how did he manage to redirect their destination? *shrug*

..Sorry..I've heard the same self defeatism too many times now..Every time a artist goes beyond the abilities of the viewing mass,,its, he jumped the shark..he made it up as he went along ..its all lies..etc etc...These Are The Same Comments,,Word for Word,,that were said about Lost,,and just about every other artistic expression done in the Surreal.. So..if the same words said in critique keep being said about Art expressed in the Surreal, over time..that says more about the commentators than the Art. You just don't get it. You are not even original in your condemnation..

I've been called out in the OP.. a load of happy horse schitt..,From my view, your frustration is getting the better of you. I suggest you keep your comments to your self. If you don't get it..say so. But you make yourself look bad,,by saying its others fault. The problem is between your Ears Fallen not whats between mine. I have enjoyed the series and especially enjoyed the Last. I find many things and ways to celebrate the work , here . I am having fun with it. The horse schitt is You trying to deny what I have found and appreciate in the Last Chrons. You can't find it but I'm the one full of it....???

I'm not the one with the Problem Fallen.. You have the Problem. Its Yours to solve. If you like being disappointed, Fine..Then don't do a thing. If you do not want to be disappointed and just maybe eventually come around to appreciate the Last Chrons and TLD..then there are links I have provided that are a good start to that.

I understand the perception that says ..a reader shouldn't have to read up on anything to read Donaldson.. Thats lazy thinking, a conceit, and self defeating. You always will have something to learn..ALWAYS.

You are reading a Best Seller author..You are reading a critically acclaimed author. Comparing Donaldson to a TV show is the horsechhitt. Your " expectations" are not the authors standards..he writes to a much higher and deeper standard of craft. Please..Just kno..Surrealism is a State of Mind..so when the author talks of psychological paradigms....yea..just maybe..hes talking about Surrealism. You won't know until you look it up and understand it tho.

Yeah, I'm not sure "not liking something" equates to "jumping the shark" or "narrative failure" (though that last, if kept subjective, could merely be one's personal experience).

I mean, how could it be "jumping the shark" when everyone is finding excuses not to just blow up the world? We have a huge portion of the novel dealing with mere exhaustion, building, moving rocks, travelling, and instead of saying something like, "This fantasy is pretty mundane", it's "jumping the shark"?! They did not have an intergalactic dimensional laser fight in the eternities, they just had mere battles.

Seems like you're just "using Occam's Razor" to slash wildly about at whatever you can cut.

oh hey ..do I need to remind anybody that the Author..Stephen R Donaldson,,was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam war..yes he chose to do hospital work rather than be drafted..now..I know that doesn't mean he wore orange saffron robes, but he just may have chanted the ooooommmm thing and let his brain get out side of himself once or twice while he experienced being a Pariah in his own Country..So,,if you want to go around casting aspersions in your confusion, be sure you get it right from the start..

Oh, the unwitting irony is priceless. Compare and contrast...

My original post above wrote:As I've already posted elsewhere, my irritation led me to come up with a Jungian take on TLD, based on SRD's strident and repeated insistence that the key to the Last Chrons lay in a "psychological paradigm" and again, in the "schools of psychology" that interest him. Others maintain that you can only appreciate the book's "deeper significance" if you view it in a Surrealist light.

But frankly, so bloody what? I'm not going to sit here hugging my knees in delight at my own cleverness in allegedly working this out. I'm not going to don saffron-coloured robes, assume a lotus position, murmuring "Aaaah grasshopper, you just need to open your mind" and shake my head pityingly and condescendingly at anyone who doesn't see (let alone buy into) this...

...So I'm lucky enough through a little education to know a little about Freud and Jung. And others are lucky enough to know a little about the Surrealist movement in art. But why should an appreciation of a book have to be that eclectic and excluding?

lurch wrote:..Sorry..I've heard the same self defeatism too many times now..Every time a artist goes beyond the abilities of the viewing mass,,its, he jumped the shark..he made it up as he went along ..its all lies..etc etc...These Are The Same Comments,,Word for Word,,that were said about Lost,,and just about every other artistic expression done in the Surreal..

I note with a smile that, for the crime of daring to have a differing opinion, I've been sentenced to being a mere part of the "viewing mass", the great unwashed, the less enlightened, the hoi polloi... I'd call that classic intellectual snobbery. You may note in my OP that I quite deliberately rejected self-satisifiedly camping out on the intellectual high ground as if it was my sole right alone - see the "nots" I've now highlighted in red above in an effort to clarify things for you. You really might wish to rethink your arrogance here.

lurch wrote:So..if the same words said in critique keep being said about Art expressed in the Surreal, over time..that says more about the commentators than the Art. You just don't get it. You are not even original in your condemnation..

I'd suggest that a more reasoned and humbler person might rephrase "You just don't get it" as "You don't agree with my take on the book". Or are you really convinced that you're solely "the enlightened one"? And that anyone daring to disagree with your view is intellectually forever benighted? If so, that's both shockingly despotic, élitist and again overweeningly arrogant of you. "You just don't get it"... I don't know whether to laugh or cry, since that comment is the very quintessence of the pitying and condescending "grasshopper" attitude I clearly defined in my OP.

lurch wrote:I've been called out in the OP.. a load of happy horse schitt..,From my view, your frustration is getting the better of you. I suggest you keep your comments to your self.

No, you've not been called out in the OP. TLD has for the reasons stated. However, I note that you'd now advocate suppression of opinions daring to differ from yours? Interesting...

lurch wrote:If you don't get it..say so. But you make yourself look bad,,by saying its others fault. The problem is between your Ears Fallen not whats between mine.

*Sigh*. If I'm blaming anyone, I'm blaming SRD for in my opinion failing to pay enough care and attention to the narrative level with TLD I've justified my opinion with examples. Unlike you, I'm absolutely not avowing that my opinion is the only "right" one. I'm not the one being arrogantly élitist here - I wouldn't presume that I'm the only person "smart" enough to have undergone the revelatory "epiphany" or crucial "erudition" that you clearly claim for yourself. That's the thing about reactions to and opinions upon Art - alternate ones to mine *are* valid. It's a shame you can't allow for the same possibility.

lurch wrote:I have enjoyed the series and especially enjoyed the Last. I find many things and ways to celebrate the work , here . I am having fun with it. The horse schitt is You trying to deny what I have found and appreciate in the Last Chrons. You can't find it but I'm the one full of it....???

I'm not the one with the Problem Fallen.. You have the Problem. Its Yours to solve. If you like being disappointed, Fine..Then don't do a thing.

Holy Christ. First off, I'm actually genuinely pleased that you've found a take on the LCs that satisfies you, That's a good thing. Now personally, I don't buy into your Surrealist view on the works - that's an allowable thing. Furthermore, I'm not even sure I buy into my own Jungian view on the works - that's also an allowable thing. In fact, as per my OP, I freely acknowledge the danger of "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome in my - or anyone else's - coming up with any allegedly "definitive" take on that which is subliminally metaphysical within TLD and the LCs. Any of us may see something that simply isn't there, but the risk of so doing is greatest for fervent apologists. Again, it's a shame that you cannot acknowledge the possibility that you might be "wrong". That really *is* a "problem". And clearly not one lying "between my ears".

"Wrong" is itself the wrong concept here, because there are actually multiple "rights". IMHO - do note that "H", lurch - Art inspires a response in the individual reader, or viewer, or listener or whatever. That response is necessarily subjective and as such, all responses are to a very large extent individually valid. There is not only one "right" take on the LCs or indeed on any work of art. Again I find it staggering that you should even want to deny this.

lurch wrote:If you do not want to be disappointed and just maybe eventually come around to appreciate the Last Chrons and TLD..then there are links I have provided that are a good start to that.

So, what you're saying is that you - and only you - and your links are "the way, the truth and the light"??? How very messianic. With respect, just get over yourself - that's ridiculous. Yes, your opinion on the LCs is valid, but then again, so is mine and so is everyone else's.

lurch wrote:I understand the perception that says ..a reader shouldn't have to read up on anything to read Donaldson.. Thats lazy thinking, a conceit, and self defeating. You always will have something to learn..ALWAYS.

That's about the only statement you've made that I find myself in some agreement with, but only some agreement. In that very statement, you've encapsulated my main issue with the LCs and TLD in particular. Whyever should a reader have to involve him-/herself in research in order to appreciate a novelistic work of fiction at the narrative level? Sure, you'd need to be prior informed in order to get anything out of some erudite lecture on some specialist subject, but not out of a fictional novel. And that's where in my opinion TLD falls down - at the narrative level. In my view, great allegory works on more than one level - it has to satisfy at the level of plot, characterisation and drama, in case that's all that the reader sees in it. It doesn't scrimp or rush or force this level - cf. the First and Second Chrons as prime examples of gifted narrative success. It takes care in creating the narrative vehicle by which any deeper subliminal message is conveyed. If it doesn't achieve this, it becomes noticeably and overtly preachy - or stridently and monofacetedly didactic, if you'd rather. It becomes a sermon.

I'm also a little troubled by what I see as such a dramatic authorial change of tack here from a "Best Seller author" as you rightly term SRD. Are you quite sure that this "Best Seller author's" conscious intent was all of a sudden to solely write for the chosen few? The "crème de la crème", those happy few who have done the necessary research, or had the right education and thus have achieved - according to you - the apt Surrealist enlightenment? Really? You think that SRD is the sort of author who'd actually intend to be that knowingly eclectic, excluding and élitist, do you? I disagree - I think that, as a "Best Seller author", he tries to write inclusive literature. I simply think he got the balance wrong between the attention he paid to fashioning the narrative, compared to that which he paid to constructing the allegory. As I said in the OP, in my opinion, he took his eye off the ball and forsook narrative demands - which God knows in the past he's succeeded in fulfilling brilliantly - in favour of allegorical and didactic ones. And yet again, that's an allowable position for me to hold.

lurch wrote:Please..Just kno..Surrealism is a State of Mind..so when the author talks of psychological paradigms....yea..just maybe..hes talking about Surrealism. You won't know until you look it up and understand it tho.

Oh, for the record, I'd suggest that it's a good idea to be careful in what you assume... it's invariably dangerous - (and in this case amusing) to presume - as you do - that you know what another poster is or is not already informed about of or au fait with.

lurch wrote:oh hey ..do I need to remind anybody that the Author..Stephen R Donaldson,,was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam war..yes he chose to do hospital work rather than be drafted..now..I know that doesn't mean he wore orange saffron robes, but he just may have chanted the ooooommmm thing and let his brain get out side of himself once or twice while he experienced being a Pariah in his own Country..So,,if you want to go around casting aspersions in your confusion, be sure you get it right from the start..

...and similarly, let me disabuse you, because you're barking entirely up the wrong tree. (Gee, you can be mistaken... with all your self-professed and much vaunted perceptiveness, whoda ever thunk that?) My reference to saffron robes was entirely and self-ironically self-referential and did not allude to SRD. As I would have thought was starkly clear, I'm lampooning myself and my Jungian interpretation - and anyone else with any other metaphysical interpretation - who'd have the sheer front to claim that their view was solely and exclusively the correct one. I certainly wouldn't have the presumption to style myself as the one true prophet - and especially on something that by its very nature is open to personal interpretation.

Lurch, I urge you to re-read your post here. I doubt you intended to come across as egotistically condescending, as patronisingly self-congratulatory and as intellectually arrogant as you sadly have. Rather than instantly stating that people disagreeing with your opinion "just don't get it", aka "are just too blind/just too ill-educated/just too plain dumb to understand", try taking a less supercilious and far more reasoned attitude - that's why the phrase "let's agree to differ" exists, hmm?

And you might also want to consider the possibility that a little self-awareness and a little self-irony might just be humanity's greatest saving graces...

The "best selling author" praise combined with "viewing masses" criticism seemed like an ironic juxtaposition in a the same post. Is Donaldson to be respected for selling to the masses, or for rising above their expectations? If he doesn't rise above (or even meet) *my* expectations, why should I care about either point, regardless of their contradiction?

I thought comparing these books to a TV show was just fine as long as it was Lost, but it's "horseshit" to compare it to Star Trek or Happy Days?

Without question, there was needless spectacle in the LC, and in the LD in particular, which is the point of the metaphor. The reason "jumping the shark" can be an apt comparison--despite the fact that it has been used frequently by others--is that this is part of what is being criticized: the lack of originality and standards of quality found in the author's previous work. Calling that label unoriginal seems to miss the point. It's like calling the use of the word "cliche" cliche. [Heck, at least one person here admitted that he'd never heard the phrase before, so it's can't be too cliche or unoriginal.]

I suppose we could invent a new meme specifically for SRD's needless spectacle. Maybe we should say that he "woke the Worm," or "tamed the Lurker." Or how about: "Screwed Linden while the world was endin'." Heh, that last one even kind of rhymes.

I take issue with TLD precisely because SRD is a best selling author, and the author of my favorite books.

The first and second chrons were, in my opinion, masterpieces. TPTP left me emotionally wrung for days. There are so many quotes, so many characters that were just amazing. They have stuck with me since my first reading. And every subsequent reading.

I have talked total strangers into buying the books which discussing them in bookstores. I have bought these books for others to make sure they read them. I have pestered the living 5h!t out of people to finish them so we could discuss it.

I don't do that kind of thing for any book. I didn't do it for Enders Game or Pastwatch or Tolkien's works.

therefore my expectations of the last chrons was probably too high. SRD wasn't the same write as he was when 1 & 2 were penned. he had different motivations and different, more matured views. Looking back, I guess it was my fault for expecting they'd be written to the same standard.

But SRD doesn't get a free pass from me on anything he puts out, and I won't automatically gush over something he writes simply because he wrote it. (Please note I am not accusing anyone of doing this here, but I do know people who like someone's work, so therefore all their work is masterpiece material, even if its crap. It happens. )

The last chrons for me, aren't part of the Canon of TC. I doubt I'll ever reread them. I re-read all of them earlier this year in expectation of TLD. And while I didn't hate them, there was hardly a moment which made me feel anything like I do every time I read 1 & 2. I doubt I'll ever read the last chrons again. Frankly, I'd rather not have read TLD, but that's just my opinion.

So I think its a fair comparison to say SRD Jumped the Shark with TLD. I don't know his motivation or thought process, and I would LOVE to know what SRD himself thinks of them, and if he knows that many of us are dissatisfied with TLD. I would also love to know what Romeo and Sea think of them, but I am not sure its cool to ask.

SRD has said that if you don't like the books, don't buy them. And that is fair. Its his story. Did he do a money grab? or did he think it was a great story, and is oblivious to how it was actually received? (TLD was on the best seller list so he certainly has reason to feel good about it, sales wise. )
Or was TLC on his bucket list to finish and he just wanted it done so he can move on? It doesn't matter. It is what it is, and there are those of us who were satisfied with TLC and TLD, and those of us who aren't.

furthermore, just because he is a best selling author doesn't shield him from criticism of his work, and it doesn't make any criticism moot since, after all, he is a Best Selling Author. I don't buy any argument that stems from "He is an author and you aren't, so you don't get it." or "can you do better? go write your own." -- I can't build a car but I am an expert at driving one, and can tell when one doesn't handle well.

Conversely, SRD being a successful author puts a keener edge on how he is read by his public. Hemingway put out some real stinkers late in his career and I consider him one of the best.

TLD is emotionally dead, to me. It didn't make me feel anything. The first 3 books in TLC were similar although there were some good parts.