And as far as technical evolution, The Land is (in my estimation) about where Europe was 800-900 years ago (think Braveheart). Yeah, its suspension of disbelief, but for nothing to have changed? That kind of suspension holds up bridges.
Well, the Aborgines of Australia experienced almost no technological development of any kind for something like 40,000 years so it’s not impossible for society not to “advance” with time. And the people of the Land have (or at least had) Earthpower (and in a sense even its corrupted variant, the Sunbane) as an alternate technology.
Also, I would put their technical development quite a bit further back than Medieval Europe. Metal is quite uncommon and written language is rare. And do we even see wheels anywhere?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
Cail wrote:I find it hard to believe that in the seven to eight thousand years that have passed since LFB, the Land's society hasn't evolved at all....Still basically an early iron-age society. Now granted, it'd be rough to advance the story if stonedowners were driving around in Buicks, but it's a tough pill to swallow that nothing has changed.
If we compare (as you did in a later post) The Land to our own society, we're comparing apples and turnips. Our own society, while experiencing mass upheavals in the form of dictators, holocausts, wars, etc., has never experienced anything as devastating as The Ritual of Desecration or the Sunbane, both of which required them to start over completely from scratch. So they weren't working on an even continuum. If we compare the Land to Eastern Europe, look at how hard they're struggling to overcome the effects of communism. That might be a better analogy than Braveheart.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." (Anais Nin)
I was going to say the same thing. The land's society has suffered at least two massive setbacks. Three, if you count the Mastery of the Haruchai - Earthpower could be thought of as the Land's version of electricity, and trying to advance without it could be compared to trying to evolve a technological society without a source of power.
dlbpharmd wrote:It was the will of the Ranyhyn that the Ramen ride. To refuse would have been disobedience. The Ramen had no choice in the matter.
Indeed. No Raman had ever presented themselves to the Ranyhyn as potential riders, and no Ranyhyn had ever specifically offered itself to a Raman before, so it's not something they ever had to deal with. I think it never occurred to them that a Ranyhyn might request to be ridden by a Raman. But they ultimately defer everything to the will of the Ranyhyn, so if one wants to be ridden, they ride. Though I did get the impression that Mahrtiir (sp?) was the only Manethrall who was...edgy...enough to ride.
Also, the Haruchai share mind-to-mind, a form of communication that would seem, hypothetically, to discourage innovation, especially given the importance of preserving racial and historical knowledge.
Dave wrote:Foul is far more interesting in Runes than he was in the previous six books combined. For once he isn't acting like a cheap Republic serial villain.
Personally, I found the opposite. To me, Foul in Runes didn't demonstrate the edge that made me like/hate/fear him in the first place. Other than the "I am content" comment, he seemed...clumsy.
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, of course. But I found "The Despiser's Guidance" the book's most interesting and disturbing chapter. Foul in "serial villain" mode -- as he was in the first two Chronicles -- was fearsome enough. But when he starts saying things "merrily," I start to get nervous. In the first two go-arounds, he was so over the top with his declamations and insistences and prophecies of doom that I got the impression that he was trying to convince himself of the inevitability of his victory almost as much as he was trying to convince TC. But this time, he appears cool, confident...almost relaxed. Frankly, "relaxed Foul" scares the bejeezus out of me.
I can see your point, but as you say, it's all personal opinion. Foul is meant to be the incarnation of contempt - as SRD put it: "withering scorn". that just came across more to me in the previous books, particularly the first three. He radiated a palpable loathing to me throughout the First Chronicles.
I equate Foul, in this series, to Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hanibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. Certainly there have been other serial characters depicted in film that act and speak more ferociously, but it is Hopkins's relaxed scorn that makes him - in my mind (and most everyone that I've ever talked to) - the scariest serial killer in film history.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." (Anais Nin)
1) The parallel between her son and Roger (Cov.'s son) is way too rife with peril to be an accident. I predict that the halfhand to beware of is none other than Jeremiah. Donaldson dips into Christianity on ocassion, and one might recall that Jeremiah was a phophet whose message of doom for Jerusalem was met bitterly by believers. Also, it seems that J is somewhat more WHOLE in the land than on earth. Also, consider this...
Son of Linden
Son of Covenant
Son of Sunder
Son of Cail
One Raver was undone. One torments Joan. Where is the last?
burgs66 wrote:I equate Foul, in this series, to Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hanibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. Certainly there have been other serial characters depicted in film that act and speak more ferociously, but it is Hopkins's relaxed scorn that makes him - in my mind (and most everyone that I've ever talked to) - the scariest serial killer in film history.
I agree on Hannibal in Lambs, but I disagree on equating him to Runes-ear Foul. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this
But...I've done it too...so...Stephen King has to be my least favorite author. I read ten pages of The Gunslinger and couldn't get any further. And the longer his books get, the more tangential they become. He's actually a terrific author to compare to Donaldson. Whereas SRD doesn't do anything gratuitously, and never follows wild tangents, King does the opposite. In his book "On Writing", he admits as much. IMHO, following a tangent just because an idea pops into your head is the worst thing a writer can do - especially if it's not germane to the story. If it is, then it needs to be explored, thought through, and if it fits, work it in. But King doesn't take the time to think it through, he just follows it.
The shorter his works are (Shawshank Redemption), the better they are.
If that turd denies SRD the #1 spot on the NYT best seller list, I will puke. Although it may not be likely that SRD gets that close. We'll see in a couple of weeks.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." (Anais Nin)
I think you sell King a bit short in some respects. His work on the Tower series in particular is more character driven, then event driven. Additionally, he is very good with metaphor.
SRD is of course more cerebral a writer, and is more to my liking, but King has his strengths, too. I definetly would not use the word "turd" to describe him.
I say, give the Tower a chance...You will have the time between RotE and FR.
SRD and I have one similarity (God I wish we had more) - we tend to be very direct in our opinions of other writers. He's softened of late, though, and I haven't. Turd may be strong, and God knows King has sold more books than SRD has and I ever will, but I lost faith in him as a constructor of stories ages ago.
I know that SRD likes this series, though, or so I seem to remember him saying in the gradual interview.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." (Anais Nin)
burgs66 wrote:SRD and I have one similarity (God I wish we had more) - we tend to be very direct in our opinions of other writers. He's softened of late, though, and I haven't. Turd may be strong, and God knows King has sold more books than SRD has and I ever will, but I lost faith in him as a constructor of stories ages ago.
I know that SRD likes this series, though, or so I seem to remember him saying in the gradual interview.
Well then. Let us agree to disagree. I respect your opinions my friend! Other authors I like (totally off topic!) Theodore Sturgeon, Bernard Malmud, CArl Sagan.
I've just finished both DT7 and RotE, and I think it's interesting to compare and contrast the two books/series/authors.
I've read just about everything King's written, and on some level enjoyed most of them. He's written a few really good books (The Shining, The Stand, Wizard and Glass), and a few really horrible ones (Gerald's Game, Rose Madder, The Dark Half). King, to me, is basically a hack that's hit a couple of dingers. Overall, I enjoyed the DT series because, as you said, it is the most character-driven story that King's written. But after 4000 pages, the story does not resolve itself well. In addition, King does himself absolutely no favors with the afterword, especially since he's set himself up as a "friend" of his fans by wrapping all his books together in the DT series.
By comparison, I've read nothing of SRD's other than the TC books. To me, they are a much more coherent and cohesive series. Now granted, the structure is different (two trilogys vs. a series of 7), but there is a resolution that makes sense in both the trilogys (and yes, I know that Ka is a wheel). I find that when I re-read SRD, I continually get more out of the story. With King, I don't feel that (with the exception of Wizard and Glass-that is a truly unbelievable book).
However, it's difficult to argue with sucess. King's made scads of money doing what he does, he is probably the US's most read author. But I would classify him as more of a (usually) pleasant diversion, not a great author. From what I've read of SRD, he deserves this title.
I don't know if it would be kosher to start a topic about this, but I would be very interested in seeing what others make of these two epic series.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
