Kevin's Watch

I'm finding it a bit sad reading the stuff on Donaldons website. Although theres some interesting stuff, there is far too much questioning going on about the first two chronicles, and I think it's a shame.

Let me explain

Part of the reason I really enjoyed the books was that there were very strong undercurrents of storyline and plenty of room for your own interpretation. I always loved the idea that TC didnt know if the Land was real and was very disheartened to hear in these forums that the books made sure that was explained as not the case, ie the Land was real. I am still a bit in denial of that, as I just don't think it works as well without the ambiguity of whether it's real or not. I also was very strongly tied to the allegorical nature of the story, the links with religion and technology, and things like Lord Foul actually being a personification of his leprosy and the state of the Land the state of TCs own real health, so he is battling against his own disease, and the Land is actually his mind, or his writing. So the Old Land represents his old carefree and imaginative self when he was writing his novels and presumably healthy, then as leprosy kicked in, the darkness and bitterness crept in to the writing and hence the Land got into trouble. When the fire in his farm burns his manuscript, the Land is scorched and destroyed as per the 2nd chronicles. His moral stance in the Land represents his dealing with the disease. Give in to his imagination (ie accept the Land and kick ass with his white magic) and suffer the consequences of that, deny it (as he initially does) is all about restraining his old personality, actions and beahviour in order to survive with a strict and regulated way of living.

But it was even more than that, at every turn there were little things, characters, stories, and links that wrapped up around each other, creating more depth and interest.

I'm sure this is what art is supposed to be all about. As a reader, you're obligated to take part in the creation of the work by supplying your own ideas, theories and feelings. The fact that the chronicles allowed this on such a grand scale was really great, even though it's clear a lot of it happened by accident, or as a happy consequence of other ideas.

Having read the gradual interview, I am dismayed to see that so many people want to dissect everything down to the last detail, such that I can now see that a huge portion of what I myself added to the story was certainly not in the mind of the author. While that doesnt fully change my enjoyment, it does, for sure, somewhat reduce my awe at the work. I suppose it's a bit like a child who peeps behind the curtain at a puppet show

I hope someone else understands my point, I'm not meaning to rag on anyone who is asking the questions, or dissing SRD or his talent, but I'm a little let down by the things I read, and having the author himself so clearly refute ideas and perceptions which in my own mind make the books a hundred times more interesting. Glad to see SRD did say that at the end of the day it's all about your own interpretation, so I was sad to see him be so explicit in explaining away or against certain theories and ideas. I'm surprised really, it is hard for me to believe that many of theories I have, which are not that far fetched are just an accident, but obviously I'm not SRD so I don't know squat.


Still, I will continue to have my own interpretations and ideas and to heck with it hehe. The 3rd chrons snippet does sound great, and I can't wait for the books to come out

worryingly, Amazon UK has moved the book to October 2005, I thought it was October of 2004 it came out?

I understand what your talking about

But surely you can understand people wanting to know the truth? Or understand the books?

and the date better not have changed!

Lee, your point is well taken and respected.

As long as my most isn't well respected, then I have no problem with this thread....

My take is this: SRD weaves so much philosophy, so much religion and other intellectually stimulating ideas into his work, that analysis and dissection is sure to follow.

The land is real. Proven by the presence of the father/beggar. Also, didn't TC bring back an artifact from the land once?

Anyway, I alweays thought that JOAN was the symbol for the heath of the land. Recall that is was SHE who chose the White Gold...not TC...as their wedding bands. Also, it was she who (like the land) was broken and required bloodshed to survive in the 2nd chronicles. The fact that she needs to hurt herslef in the beginning of the 3rd, is unsettling at best.

Here's is MY tack... Don't read the interview! heh,

Oh I dont doubt it is real, as SRD seemed to confirm, even if the evidence in the books in my mind is not absolute (we had this thread before, and I'm sure better literary analysts than me gave convincing arguments why you could refute the claim it is real), but that wasnt really my point. His work is genius, but like a great piece of art I think it suffers if overanalysed, part of the genius is having these undercurrents, allegories and whispers of other stories woven into the main story. The fact that SRD has made it so self consistent just makes it seem even more genius because you can look for symbolism and hidden secrets at every level, getting deeper and deeper, and at no time does the writing of SRD ever leap out and stop that process. It's vivid and inspirational enough to set your mind in motion but never too literal or concrete to limit your imagination. I just felt a tinge of sadness reading some of the interview, I can understand why some fans want to know X and Y (although I still think its better left for you to make your own mind up), but some (not all) of the answers really leaped out at me to say that a lot of the amazing complexity I had included in my own interpretation of the books was actually not part of SRDs plans or intentions, which is a bit sad as it somewhat reduces my admiration of the work (like from 1000% to 999% , but just went against a lot of my own ideas which just seemed to be enforced at every level by the subtleties of the books

just a small musing, this is not to say I don't think they are amazing books still, I do, and I still think SRD is a phenomenal author for putting them together, and I'll be first in line for the next set too!!!!
I'm just reserving the right to imbue the original stories with all the twists and ideas that have come to me during the many readings, and no doubt the next re-read will bring more

Darth Revan wrote:Here's is MY tack... Don't read the interview! heh,

Actually, that's a very good point, Darth. It's like a show you don't want to watch: switch to another channel. Better yet, just put on a favorite DVD instead.

leeharris, I'm sure everyone here--and especially SRD--totally respects your right to imbue the Chronicles with your own meanings. No one here has said anything to the contrary (I don't think). It's just that the rest of us are having way too much fun reading and participating in the gradual interview. Surely you can understand that this is a dream come true for a lot of us, to be able to communicate with Mr. Donaldson himself. We couldn't deny ourselves this opportunity to ask SRD directly all these questions we've had in our heads all these years. For me personally, SRD's answers have been a joy to read, and I don't think his insights have spoiled my appreciation of the Chronicles. There is no harm in asking. If the answers appear harmful to you...well, we can't do anything about that. Hope you don't put yourself in a knot over this, leeharris. Cheers! (as Fizban would say)

well said, MM.

LOL
I think you guys are getting confused. I am not getting in a knot over this, I'm just commenting that reading through the interview, I started to get a few pangs that certain ideas and expressions had been taken away from me. I still enjoyed the rest of the content. I was also just making a more general point about how great art and literature work, at least for me, and the dangers of trying to know "too much" about the fine details of how each and every nuance in the book actually came about. I suspect a great deal of what people love about many works of art is actually the result of adding their own colour to an accidentally blank canvas. The genius of the artist is creating the canvas that allows you to use your own expression in a consistent way.

It's just exactly the same reason as why a book *in general* is far, far superior to a film. A film you might see everything - exactly as it is - but a book, even with beautiful descriptions still requires a great deal of input from your own mind and imagination and this tends to lend a more vivid and powerful response, at least in my experience. There are very very few films that give a richer experience than a book.

So, my point was just a mirror of this exact phenomenon, rather than a very obvious and childish complaint about the content of a web page that I can or can't view as I choose.

I am sure there are others who understand what I mean, and also have put their own selves into these books, only to be slightly let down by having their ideas spelled out as wrong in black and white. Doesn't really change the fact that you've supplied your own backdrop to the story, but it *does* still take a little tiny shine off it.

I know exactly what you mean. I am still awed by the Chronicles, and for the most part SRD hasn't dispelled my ideas, but on a couple of occasions I have read one of the answers and thought "Oh...that was an accident? I always thought it was meant to be there..."

It doesn't lessen my enjoyment, but it does make me slightly more wary of reading the interview too closely. After all, the various in-depth discussions the Watch has seen over the years would have been far less enjoyable if we had been able to get the real answers on demand.

I find it very helpful to keep in mind this passage from 'The Fantastic Imagination', an essay by George MacDonald:

George MacDonald wrote:'But a man may then imagine in your work what he pleases, what you never meant!'

Not what he pleases, but what he can. If he be not a true man, he will draw evil out of the best; we need not mind how he treats any work of art! If he be a true man, he will imagine true things; what matter whether I meant them or not? They are there none the less that I cannot claim putting them there! One difference between God's work and man's is that, while God's work cannot mean more than he meant, man's must mean more than he meant. . . . [Man] cannot help his words and figures falling into such combinations in the mind of another as he had not himself foreseen, so many are the thoughts allied to every other thought, so many are the relations involved in every figure, so many the facts hinted in every symbol. A man may well himself discover truth in what he wrote; for he was dealing all the time with things that came from thoughts beyond his own.

(Emphasis mine.)

(I am replying to the first concern expressed here)

This is an excellent point. Some dissect these works, or "parse" them to a point that you would think they were researching molecular biology.

I would point out that Mr. Donaldson has emphasized in his gradual interview segments that they are works of fiction, and thus cannot be held up to infinite dissection. One of his recent posts refused to answer a question because of that assertion, feeling the question came too close to treating the work as reality rather than fiction.

Still, it has been fun to look into some of the issues raised throughout the "dissection of the land" and the other forums here. As I have mentioned here previously, I can't get very many, if any , of my friends or family to read the Chronicles so I appreciate the comeradery (sp?) of all of you as we have explored these works together.

Another unrelated point - those of you who do go to Elohimfest, please be prepared to give a good accounting for the rest of us!

Srtrout

I see what you are saying leeharris - the conceptions and images (even word pronunciations) are mine and that is part of what made the stories of SRD & any other author special to me. It is however, interesting to me to find out where SRD was coming from when he wrote certain parts of the stories and what his concept was. I don't think it really changes my own "mental image" of the reading, but it does add a little more color or flavor to that which I've already read.
As far as the dissections, I always took those to be more of a forum for our collective (you will be assimilated ) concepts and find it highly entertaining and thought provocing (see your original post for instance!) to break down the story to the nth degree - not particularly to try to guess the inner workings of the author's mind (for me anyway), but rather, the inner workings of our own minds. I like to hear other peoples reactions to certain parts of the story, or have them explain how they pronounce a word or how they interperet characters actions.
This is the glory of Kevinswatch, to me!
Earthy

I see your point, leeharris. What I like about these books is that a great deal is left up to interpretation of the reader. What I like is to talk with other readers and see THEIR views and interpretations of the books. I have said it before and I will say it again - it never ceases to amaze me at the different thngs people come up with! That is the beauty of these books! I think we ask SRD specific questions because we want to know who was closest to his interpretation!

Well said.