Kevin's Watch

It's really cool.

And it takes away some of the fun of debate when someone can say, "Good point, old boy... but SRD agrees with me when I say 'blah blah blah white gold blah."

I love it!!! SRD may or may not be the ultimate arbiter of some discussions, if he so chooses.

A lot of time he answers enigmatically enough that even MORE discussion or debate is created...

I guess it's not cool to say this, but:

I hate when people use a SRD vague statement to backup their assumption. Base your debate statement on the actual book. Not whether or not SRD thougth Hile Troy was real, or the Land was real, or if SRD says "I never intended that."

It defeats the purpose, I believe.

Steve Hurtloam wrote:I guess it's not cool to say this, but:

I hate when people use a SRD vague statement to backup their assumption. Base your debate statement on the actual book. Not whether or not SRD thougth Hile Troy was real, or the Land was real, or if SRD says "I never intended that."

It defeats the purpose, I believe.

Ahhh, but I think it takes more creativity to adjust what we're thinking based on his answers.

Oh, I don't think that is true at all. SRD is the author of these stories. And any input from him on our preceptions only enhances the joy of the discussion in my opinion. I love the GI. And I just LOVE reading how he came up with all his characters and stories, and his intent. I then love applying them to the current discussions. It's amazing that he even does this. Not many authors do. I drink in every word in the GI, it's the pool of knowledge right from the source of the waterfall.

It's fascinating to hear SRD's take on things, and it can be useful to get an answer on something that's been puzzling everyone for a while.

But.

It does tend to flatten the debates, and I'm as guilty as anyone of doing that, simply because I don't see the point in discussing the possibilities when we already have the definitive answer.

Consequently, I decided some time ago not to read the GI.

CovenantJr wrote:
....
Consequently, I decided some time ago not to read the GI.

I agree with everyone here, it is VERY cool that he answers questions about his writing. I'm not saying he shouldn't do the GI.

But I like when people can find examples in the books to back up their points, and not jump to the GI.

Covenant Jr. and I are seemingly on the same page here, because I've stopped reading the GI too. I'll catch up someday, but not until I've considered the book thoroughly, with discussion here included.

When it comes down to it, I've interpreted the first 6 books in certain ways for so long that if he makes changes to my interpretation of them, either in the GI or the Last Chrons, I'll have one space in my head where I consider the story as SRD does, and another where I consider the story in the same way as I have for the last 20 years.

Frex, vow-less Haruchai sleep, just a little, but they sleep -- like Batman. And Linden got Covenant's ring at the end of the 2nd Chrons just by slipping it off his finger, and she had earned it by that point, so it wasn't theft. And so on.

It's like the Star Wars Trilogy, excpet that the SWT has such a drop off in quality between the original trilogy and the prequel, and I expect no such drop off in the Last Chrons. The lack of quality in the prequels pretty much makes my own personal interpretation a necessity.

It's nice, and really cool to hear exactly what the author intends and such (Very few authors offer such concern to their fans, so we must thank our SRD for such consideration!) but, unfortunately, it kind of takes the...uh.."debate"..out of...well..debating.

So it's a double-edged sword of sorts.

Remember, texts have their own life as soon as they have been put on paper. Ultimately the author's intention, if any, has no relevance to the meaning of the text to you. His interpretation is just one of the many possible ones.

I agree, amanibhavam.

But try to argue that point of view on THIS site.

Me: The land isn't real.
Someone Else: But SRD says it is, so I agree with that.
Me: Well I think SRD is completely wrong based on the way I interpret the book.

(hehehe... sorry, I am kind of kidding about that. I don't ever see discussions here as arguements, and I'm not SO hung up on this, I just like playing devils advocate)

and anyway... Believer, if those two "spaces" in your mind ever start to argue... get thee to a doctor! Schitzophrenia is not a nice country to visit.

I love it when someone writes in saying, "I love your books, did you ever think of doing a movie on TCOTC?"-he must bang his head off his keyboard whenever that comes up--usually two-three times a month.

SRD seems to take an "open" approach for writing, if you notice. He writes books that are very open to interpretation and makes it a point to say that *his* vision of what the book means isn't necessary the *only* vision. This contrasts to other authors like, say, L.E. Modesitt Jr., who use a "closed" approach, and tend to have a very certain message about things (Be it about ethics, or an exploration of good versus evil), pounding that point in much more blatantly.

Not so much that one is "better" approach, just different ones. I enjoy both authors individually for their own merits.

Thus, debate about SRD's stuff can pretty-much always exist, as there's a lot to debate about.

Another nice thing about SRD's way of writing is that his books are story-driven, which means that if he doesn't really needs some device or place or character or whatever he simply doesn't write it in. So in consequence quite a lot of details are missing (the Land's population, habitations, history, the rest of the Earth etc.) which leaves plenty of room for happy speculation and interpretation.

amanibhavam wrote:Another nice thing about SRD's way of writing is that his books are story-driven, which means that if he doesn't really needs some device or place or character or whatever he simply doesn't write it in. So in consequence quite a lot of details are missing (the Land's population, habitations, history, the rest of the Earth etc.) which leaves plenty of room for happy speculation and interpretation.

The only really bad part about such is, one knows when a character is introduced into the writing, they're probably going to die, or suffer, or share some fate with Linden/Covenant. Otherwise, it's pretty interesting, though it'd be cool to know of other Stonedowns, Woodhelvens, and just more about the population of the Land and the Earth that it exists in.

I'm grateful for the GI. It gives me something new from SRD to read while waiting for Fatal Revenant.

I'm grateful for it too, but all arguments, disputes, and discussions here specifically dealing with the source material should come from the source material, not the author's comments on the source material.

"Now that I've read SRD's GI, I can win all disputes on KW!! Who can argue with me now??? I don't even have to quote the book! Hahahahahaaa!!"

Steve Hurtloam wrote:I'm grateful for it too, but all arguments, disputes, and discussions here specifically dealing with the source material should come from the source material, not the author's comments on the source material.

"Now that I've read SRD's GI, I can win all disputes on KW!! Who can argue with me now??? I don't even have to quote the book! Hahahahahaaa!!"

I think you'll find even with the GI there's lot's of wiggle room. SRD has said he's not a world builder. He has no Silmarillion that's an authoritative rule book. Until and unless he actually put's something in the series, SRD has said our interpretation or speculation is just as valid as his!

Ah, then people shouldn't use his GI quotes as "authoritative" - is that what you are saying?