Kevin's Watch

You can now get SRD's new article for free from here:

https://weightlessbooks.com/?s=stephen+donaldson

You'll see there's two copies of them but one is free. Happy reading.

Been waiting for this. Thank you!

Read it! Fascinating as always.

Thanks for the link, Sea!

u.

+JMJ+

Thanx much. Will read.

Thanks, Seareach!

It's not working for me.

I had some hiccups getting it at first, but was able to read the onscreen PDF.

The PDF/Download option worked for me.

Even if your browser fails to launch adobe acrobat reader, or whatever pdf reader you choose to use, the pdf file is probably still in your browser's download folder. It's called NYRSF_318.pdf.

BTW, there's also an article by my other favorite SRD. It's like bonus candy.

That's not the problem. I couldn't get the page to load so I could get to the link. But I've figured it out -- I had to take out the "s" from "https". And hey lookit that, there's a .mobi. I can mail it to my Kindle.

EDITED: And that didn't work, either. I think the problem is a setting on my computer here at work -- the SSL click boxes are grayed out. I'll have to snag the article at home tonight.

So I finally got around to reading this new essay. It's brief - about 3 pages. And, as SRD says, "much of what I have to say is not new," which is true - he even quotes passages from his earlier [longer] essay. But that's not to say it's not worthwhile.

My first reaction is this: fantasy literature won't be taken seriously as long as people write essays about why fantasy literature should be taken seriously. I mean, no one has to explain why serious literature is serious literature. Yes, I know this is snarky. But something about the way this essay repeats the same points as from thirty years ago gives it a fruitless vibe.

Donaldson dives into Malazan quite a bit, even touching on the Karsa Orlong character. He seems to attribute it's meandering pointlessness to some sort of important intention of Erikson. I have to wonder. But it's clear he SRD takes Erikson's work very seriously. Which is a bit incredible when you consider that Erikson's formal training as a writer was the Iowa Writer's Workshop.

He also touches a lot on the Ironic Mode / Epic Vision theme, which I am particularly fond of digesting. And on the internal struggle / external struggle theme. But perhaps the most interesting thing is his theory about how we tell stories to ourselves within the privacy of our inner lives.

So it's interesting and not overbearing and if you haven't read his earlier essay it will be a bit eye-opening.

...Contemporary fantasy—even in its
most cynical, post-modern guises—is the literature of reintegration
because it both explores and accepts every dimension
of what being human means, every natural language that
humankind speaks (I mean both the language of critical intelligence
and the language of magic and monsters, which can
be seen as the language of religion). It expresses itself in both
the language of alienation and the language of affirmation.
That alone makes us more fully human, more fully ourselves,
than we would be without it...[my bold]

I found this interesting and I don't know if I have seen SRD say it before (it may have been obviously implied everywhere and I was just too dumb to get it ). It may or may not be relevant to the discussions that we have had about ' The Christian Comparison'.

wayfriend wrote:Donaldson dives into Malazan quite a bit, even touching on the Karsa Orlong character. He seems to attribute it's meandering pointlessness to some sort of important intention of Erikson.

I'm with you on this. I'm still not getting anything profound from the Malazan books I've read: lots of characters, lots of magic, lots of godly interference/interventions, lots of wandering etc. (If it was anyone other than SRD I'd consider this a 'shameless plug' for a friend Not that Erikson really needs one.)

u.

RE: the language of religion

I think we have to refer to his earlier comments. Magic and Monsters "are metaphors ... aspects of every identity ... arising from the most primitive structures of the brain ... they are the most universal aspect of our lives."

I think he means here (and I ain't positive) that Magic and Monsters are - or at least play in the same playground with - the things that religion tries to explain: "the essential conundrums of being human".

And I don't think you missed anything. Donaldson doesn't talk about religion much, and when he does, it's on the disparaging side. And he diligently excludes it from his works. However, it's plain he plays in the same playground as religion does.

wayfriend wrote:, it's plain he plays in the same playground as religion does.

He doesn't just play in their playground, he does something better---he takes a lot of their toys, gear, shapes, and fields, and fixes and re-purposes them. Restores the little sandBOX to sea and beach and sun.

I agree with you to a certain extent, Vraith, and (playing devil's (heh!) advocate) I also view it a bit more positively, with the ideas of gods, angels, demons etc. being additive to the richness of what it means to be human (and, of course, recognising that the religious institutions turn all of those things into the 'box' that you mention).

u.

ussusimiel wrote:(playing devil's (heh!) advocate) I also view it a bit more positively, with the ideas of gods, angels, demons etc. being additive to the richness of what it means to be human (and, of course, recognising that the religious institutions turn all of those things into the 'box' that you mention).

u.

Do that! Being an advocate for the Devil is a devilishly hard job...especially to "win" without bribing peeps with golden violins.

Anyway, of course god's and angels and demons can be additive to the richness/complexity/depth/meaning----as long as, which you nod to at the end, they are OURS, not we theirs [or their stand-in/middle-mens like Popes and Imams and shit.].
Heh...there is no church/religion big enough for everyone. But that doesn't matter if we don't let it matter, because there are plenty of Christs [or Allah's of Buddhas] to go around.

Anyway, again, of COURSE the language of religion is part of it...because so many of the topics are the same.

+JMJ+

Why is "the language of religion" seen as so controversial? (Or perhaps, its not, but y'all are just trying to stir up some interesting dialogue material?)

Nothing of his that I've read, whether in the books or the GI, has ever struck me as being particularly controversial, neither untowardly antipathetic nor apologetic, as regards religion.

Even the supposed money quotes that Z seems to loves to post in order to crush my fragile little wünderland barely elicit a 'meh' from me. I can get down and resonate with a lot of SDRs critique of religion.

Wosbald wrote:+JMJ+

Why is "the language of religion" seen as so controversial?

I'm not sure it is controversial, in a gestalt and/or heuristic way.
I think almost everyone agrees there's a moral/ethical dimension in almost everything SRD writes, and TC work particularly has explicit references, allusions, remakings from several specific religious takes/metaphors/systems in our world.

The exact intentions, uses, and meaning-creating results---those are the debate/controversy things.

I think part of the thing ussi was getting at [could be wrong] is SRD seems to be making a strong and explicit claim: that that sort of thing isn't merely a part of his way, nor just some authors/stories in the genre, but is a present, foundational, existential aspect of ALL the work in the genre...at least a dash of it.
And I think I agree...any work that touches on what humans are, what we value/envalue, is will have some similarity to religious language.
Just as any discussion of how things physically/materially work will have to have some aspect of mathematical language.

According to the essay, Vraith, the mere act of writing about magic and monsters implies a moral/ethical -- let's not be afraid to say spiritual, too - dimension. It's inseparable.

Not controversial, Wos; just ill-defined, and so open to interpretations that might be fair or foul.

And what are angels and demons, U, except magic and monsters that have been conscripted?

I feel compelled to say, however, that Donaldson just tells stories. He doesn't advocate moral, ethical, spiritual, or religious positions. I base this on his own comments. But, just as a man can see a flower and think of God, people who read his stories can be led to ponder the human condition. What they find depends on who they are. That's the secret of art.

wayfriend wrote:According to the essay, Vraith, the mere act of writing about magic and monsters implies a moral/ethical -- let's not be afraid to say spiritual, too - dimension. It's inseparable.

Heh...yea, I think so, I think that's what ussi was seeing/commenting on, where I was interpreting it to/what I thought I said, only more so, the next step up...it isn't just an implication, it's a tautology or nearly so.
IF one is speaking of those things one is also, by definition/necessity speaking of the other ones. That's the expansion...SRD isn't saying only SOME of it does that. He's claiming "if it DOESN't do that, then it ISN'T Epic Fantasy." [and vice versa...if it IS epic fantasy, then it DOES touch on/incorporate that realm]. And, in addition, that that kind of work, that genre, must exist and if it doesn't some aspect of human is missing---either being left fallow, or suppressed/distorted. [the proof/argument may not go quite that far...but the title shows the intent to go that far].

+JMJ+

wayfriend wrote:I feel compelled to say, however, that Donaldson just tells stories. He doesn't advocate moral, ethical, spiritual, or religious positions. I base this on his own comments.

True enough, in a sense. But how does that jibe with this?

SRD, in the GI wrote:In my case, the issue is simple: I've never had a "message" I wanted to communicate (impose on the reader), so rejecting my message should be effortless. (I'm a storyteller, not a polemicist. As such, my only mission is to help my readers understand my characters and appreciate what those poor sods are going through.) In general, however, one might say that the task of any writer is to communicate his/her intentions so clearly that the reader will--as it were spontaneously--arrive at the appropriate interpretation. And if that task has been accomplished, what would be the point of rejecting the author's message?

Is he saying that, for example, a reader "appropriately interpreting" the Necessity of Freedom as a central thematic of his story is irrelevant to as to whether or not that same reader personally affirms the Necessity of Freedom? IOW, whether or not one rejects the Necessity of Freedom in regard to Reality, one simply can't honestly reject the Necessity of Freedom in regard to his story?